Framechange

The free speech climate in the US

Eric Thompson — Mon, 29 Sep 2025 08:49:48 GMT

Jimmy Kimmel on the set of his late-night show. Wikimedia Commons

Quick announcement

I hope you’re having a great start to fall. After today’s edition, we’ll be taking a short break and will be back in a few weeks.

In the meantime, we’d love to hear what topics you’d like us to cover next, as well as your thoughts on this week’s look at the free speech environment in the US. Thanks for reading.

– Dylan

Snippets

A gunman drove into a Latter-day Saints church in Grand Blanc, Michigan and opened fire during a service, killing at least 4 people and injuring 8 others before being fatally shot by police. The FBI is investigating the incident as “targeted violence,” with the motive still unknown.
A shooter opened fire at a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) field office in Dallas, killing one detainee at the facility and critically wounding two others before dying of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. The FBI said that rounds found near the suspected shooter had messages that were “anti-ICE in nature.”
Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted by a federal grand jury in Virginia on counts of making a false statement and obstructing a congressional proceeding. The case centers around statements made during Comey’s 2020 Senate testimony on the FBI’s handling of election interference efforts during the 2016 presidential election.
New York City Mayor Eric Adams officially ended his re-election campaign amid challenges with fundraising, approval ratings, and scrutiny over a dismissed federal corruption case.
A federal judge ruled that President Trump violated the law when he dismissed 17 agency inspectors general without giving Congress required notice. The judge declined to reinstate the officials, however, due to a lack of irreparable harm.

What’s happening

In the weeks since Charlie Kirk’s murder, several members of the Trump administration have publicly called for or threatened penalties against people whose remarks about Kirk they said crossed the line.

On Sep 15, Vice President JD Vance, guest-hosting Kirk’s podcast, urged listeners: “When you see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder, call them out, and hell, call their employer.”

After Jimmy Kimmel suggested on his late-night show that Kirk’s killer was part of the MAGA movement, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr condemned the comments as “truly sick,” warning: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way… Companies can act on Kimmel, or the FCC will have more work ahead.” Soon after, ABC – owned by Disney – suspended Kimmel’s show. He was off the air for six episodes before being reinstated by ABC on Sep 23.

Kimmel is one of at least 100 people – including educators, healthcare workers, airline workers, and a Secret Service agent – who have faced professional consequences for remarks about Kirk. In several cases, lawmakers themselves pushed for firings. On Sep 16, Attorney General Pam Bondi said the Justice Department would be “targeting anyone with hate speech,” adding: “There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech.” After facing criticism for her initial remarks, she clarified that it was “hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence” that is not protected by the First Amendment.

These recent events have sharpened the debate over definitions of free speech and whether the Trump administration is eroding free speech protections. Today, we bring you viewpoints from multiple sides. Let us know what you think.

Notable viewpoints

More opposed to the idea that free speech is under attack:

Americans are still practicing free speech without consequence.

President Trump may have authoritarian instincts, but the First Amendment has not been revoked. Leading voices in the US are almost uniformly outspoken against the Trump administration and they speak without being regulated, censored, canceled or criminalized for their speech. In the case of Jimmy Kimmel, Disney was not censored by the FCC – rather, Disney folded and suspended Kimmel without challenging the threat of regulatory sanctions.

Penalizing those celebrating the assassination isn’t “cancel culture,” it’s morality winning out over violent discourse.

Firing, suspending, and shaming people for celebrating the assassination of an innocent man does not equate to “cancel culture.” True cancel culture had aimed to disrupt established norms of speech and debate, and in the process harmed people who expressed views that were actually held by the majority of the country. Cheering for the murder of a political opponent, however, has long been unacceptable and it’s healthy for our political environment to penalize those who do so.
Calling for penalties on those celebrating or mischaracterizing an assassination is not “cancel culture,” which is wrong no matter which side the target is on. The public is rightly recoiling from a repulsive line of commentary about a murdered man, a welcome sign that basic decency is making a comeback.
“Protecting free speech means tolerating expression of most of the hateful thoughts generated… But when these thoughts extend to lauding assassinations and celebrating death, there should be consequences. Prosecution shouldn’t be one of those consequences. But discipline by an employer should be. That discipline can include discharge. In some cases, it certainly should.” (Paul Mirengoff, Ringside at the Reckoning.)

Penalizing mischaracterizations of political violence is no worse than what the left has been doing to its opponents for years.

Progressives complaining about censorship are unable or unwilling to see the difference between political debate and rationalizing political violence. Moreover, it is disingenuous for the left to hide behind the First Amendment after they’ve spent years silencing speech and criminalizing political positions while simultaneously labeling their opponents as fascists and Nazis. The left is claiming to be a victim of a phenomenon it helped create, caring more about tribalism than actual free debate.
Jimmy Kimmel intentionally misled the public by labeling Kirk’s murderer as a MAGA supporter, which is unacceptable during a time of civil unrest. The FCC’s pressuring of Disney in response is no different than Former President Biden’s pressuring of tech companies into falling in line with so-called “misinformation” policies during his administration.

More supportive of the idea that free speech is under attack:

In censoring any speech, the government is removing freedoms from Americans.

Nothing justifies the government performing censorship through regulatory tactics such as those threatened by FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. Regulatory censorship creates a political cycle in which the government punishes its opponents – regardless of which party is in power – and leaves the entire country with less freedom and less free speech.
“Hate speech is not illegal. It is not even a legal category in the US. Yes, we have laws against incitement, defamation, and libel, but nothing so broad and amorphous as ‘hate speech.’ As Kirk himself once put it: ‘Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free.’” (The Editors, The Free Press.)

The government is silencing American citizens and corporations.

Trump is wrong to use Charlie Kirk’s death to suppress debate and demand full obedience from the country. Kirk said denigrating things about certain groups, but he had the right to speak his mind, as do his opponents. When people say something that violates common decency, they are still protected under the First Amendment.
Expressing outrage over statements one disagrees with is understandable, and the power to do so is foundational to living in a free society. What is occurring now, however, is state-backed repression. The US government is going after American corporations because it is unhappy with their politics. Whether these corporations fold to the government’s wishes out of fear of regulatory retribution or because they see financial interests in appeasing the government is irrelevant – it is still the result of state coercion.
It is terrifying that the federal government openly used its regulatory muscle to force Disney into suspending Kimmel. But it is just the latest in a series of threats to free speech that the Trump administration has pushed over the past several months which – given Trump’s expressed hatred towards his opponents – could get much worse. Trump clearly wants to use the government as a weapon to silence his enemies.

The government is violating US statute.

The government’s censorship campaign is a wrongful abuse of its power and a violation of the First Amendment. As Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) established, speech considered hateful is still protected by the First Amendment as long as it does not cause imminent violence. Moreover, NRA v. Vullo (2023) prohibits government officials from calling for people to lose their jobs or face other punishment for expressing their political views.

Give us your feedback! Please let us know how we can improve.

Your feedback

Music on the bottom

New song from Colter Wall, who seems to only be getting better. This is “1800 Miles.”
– Dylan

Listen on Spotify, Apple Music, or Amazon Music.

Prescription drug ad regulation

Eric Thompson — Mon, 22 Sep 2025 02:36:31 GMT

Pennsylvania campus of American pharmaceutical company, Merck. Wikimedia Commons

Snippets

President Donald Trump said that he and Chinese leader Xi Jinping approved a preliminary deal to transfer TikTok’s ownership from the Chinese technology company ByteDance to American investors. Under the arrangement, ByteDance’s ownership would drop to below 20% to comply with a federal law that passed last year. (See our previous coverage of the TikTok ban.)
Disney’s ABC suspended Jimmy Kimmel’s talk show indefinitely after comments he made on-air about Charlie Kirk’s suspected killer. The suspension came after criticism of Kimmel by Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Brendan Carr, who said the FCC would consider regulatory action against ABC.
Israel launched a large-scale ground offensive into Gaza City, which aims to free hostages and remove the estimated 3,000 Hamas militants it says are located in the area. Approximately 350,000 Gaza City residents have evacuated the area, according to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
NATO intercepted 3 Russian fighter jets that had flown through Estonia’s airspace for 12 minutes over the Baltic Sea. The incursion comes a week after both Poland and Romania said Russian drones breached their airspace.
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted unanimously to end its broad endorsement of COVID-19 vaccines for adult Americans, instead recommending individuals make the decision for themselves after medical consultation. The new guidelines come after Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr replaced all 17 sitting members of the advisory committee in June.

What’s happening

On Sep 9, President Trump issued a memorandum directing the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “ensure transparency and accuracy” in direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug advertising, including by requiring that prescription drug ads contain a greater amount of information around any associated risks. The memorandum also directed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to enforce that prescription drug ads are truthful and not misleading.

Pharmaceutical ads in the US: The US is one of only two countries in the world that allows for DTC pharmaceutical ads, such as on TV or social media (New Zealand is the other). The first television commercial for a prescription drug in the US aired in 1983. The FDA immediately ordered the ad be taken down, as the ad did not represent a “fair balance” between the drug’s risks and benefits. The FDA called for a voluntary moratorium on DTC media ads for prescription drugs from 1983-1985. In 1985, the FDA rescinded the moratorium, allowing pharma ads on TV, but with strict requirements that ads disclose information about all possible risks associated with a medication.

In 1997, the FDA loosened its disclosure requirements for DTC pharma ads. In what is known as the “adequate provision” guideline, the FDA said that TV and radio prescription drug ads were required to only disclose the “major statement” of key risks and not list all possible side effects. The FDA’s ruling led to a surge of DTC pharma advertising in the United States. It jumped from $1.3B in 1998 to $3.3B in 2005. In 2024, pharma firms spent $10.8B on DTC ads.

What happens now: Following Trump’s memorandum, the HHS issued a release in which it said it is returning to its pre-1997 position on pharmaceutical ads, and that it will “require drug companies to include full safety warnings,” including full contraindications, boxed warnings, and common precautions on all DTC ads. The FDA said that it has sent thousands of letters to pharma companies – including Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Hims & Hers Health – warning them “to remove misleading ads.” The FDA also said it sent roughly 100 cease-and-desist letters to pharma firms “with deceptive ads.” Firms reportedly have 15 working days to respond to the letters, after which the FDA could seek legal action if violations are not fixed, including seizure or injunction.

Trump’s memorandum has intensified a debate over how stringently drug advertising should be regulated in the US. Today, we bring you viewpoints from multiple sides. Let us know what you think.

Notable viewpoints

More opposed to stricter regulation of DTC pharma ads:

The new memorandum violates US laws.

Since requiring additional disclosures may make some ads too long to be feasible – as the FDA commissioner has admitted – the government is indirectly banning free speech for pharma companies through obstructions, which it is not allowed to do. The FDA is using a backdoor to avoid outwardly violating the First Amendment.
The new disclaimer mandates go against US statute. National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (2018) determined that speaker-based laws designed to drown out the speaker’s intended message were not legal. Moreover, in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (2021), the Supreme Court ruled that disclosure laws must be “narrowly tailored” to an acceptable governmental interest, and the White House’s desire to curtail corporate speech with intentionally elongated disclaimers is not acceptable nor “narrowly tailored.”
This is illicit censorship – United States v. Caronia (2012) ruled that banning and criminalizing truthful off-label promotional pharma ads violated the First Amendment. While pharma ads are a unique phenomenon to the US, this doesn’t make them wrong or illegal.

Pharma ads help improve the health of Americans.

Pharma advertising makes the US more healthy, not less. For instance, a 2023 study by University of Pennsylvania researchers found DTC advertising increased treatment initiation and medication adherence among Medicare Part D participants. Drug ads help people get diagnosed and treated for chronic conditions, and a drop in DTC advertising would reduce America’s overall welfare.

The new advertising rules set a dangerous precedent for censoring other industries.

Stricter regulation of pharma ads is a Trojan horse for the government to later censor other industries that it deems pose a public health emergency. If the government can impose bureaucratic censorship to suppress pharma ads it dislikes today, it will use that same authority against other sectors such as energy companies tomorrow.

More supportive of stricter regulation of DTC pharma ads:

Pharma ads are deceptive, and imposing restrictions on them does not violate the First Amendment.

The FDA is not banning pharma ads – that would violate the First Amendment – but the First Amendment does not protect deceptive marketing. Pharma ads have misled American patients, distorted the patient-doctor relationship, strained the health care system by increasing the rate of inappropriate medication use, and driven unnecessary spending. These ads must be regulated so that decisions about prescription medication depend on patients and their doctors, not on advertising.
Drug ads are an inherently limited, biased, and problematic way to educate people about prescription medication – they encourage patients to get medication they may not need, and they drive the overprescribing of expensive drugs when cheaper, equally effective generic treatments exist.
The White House is right to impose accuracy and transparency requirements on pharma ads, which intentionally deceive patients as part of their marketing strategy and should be removed from TV and the internet altogether. This is not an issue of free speech – the US had just as much freedom of speech, if not more, in the 1960s and 1970s before pharmaceutical ads existed.

Pharma ads negatively impact the health of Americans.

DTC pharma ads can negatively impact Americans’ health by influencing how they select medications. According to one 2023 study, two-thirds of DTC pharma ads run between 2015-2021 featured medications that had low therapeutic value. Another 2023 study found that pharma firms spend the most on advertising medications with the fewest benefits. This memorandum is a welcome step towards weakening Big Pharma’s influence over Americans’ health decisions.
Today's pharma ads do not adequately present the risks associated with taking prescription medications. Moreover, pharma ads online or posted by social media influencers frequently only share the upsides of a drug, contributing to America’s pill-popping culture. Encouraging Americans to take drugs instead of making lifestyle changes will not make America healthy.

Give us your feedback! Please let us know how we can improve.

Your feedback

Music on the bottom

I’ve been on a bit of a Talking Heads kick recently. “Girlfriend is Better” is a jam, simply put.
– Dylan

Listen on Spotify, Apple Music, or Amazon Music.

The US military strikes an alleged drug trafficking boat

Eric Thompson — Sun, 14 Sep 2025 23:33:34 GMT

Aerial footage of the Venezuelan boat before it was struck. The White House / Wikimedia Commons

Quick announcement

Before we get into this week’s edition, we want to acknowledge the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Kirk was a polarizing figure, but whether you vehemently agreed or disagreed with his political beliefs, his murder is tragic and disturbing. It also represents the dangerous erosion of our commitment to resolving differences through dialogue rather than violence.

In moments like these, the principles that have sustained American democracy for nearly 250 years become more essential than ever: free speech, open debate, and our ability to engage across ideological divides. Violence has no place in our political discourse, and it threatens the very foundation of democratic society.

This tragedy reinforces why the work of organizations like Framechange – and your engagement with thoughtful, open, and rigorous discussion – matters more than ever. We're grateful for your support and encourage you to continue fostering understanding and empathy in your own communities.

– Eric

Snippets

Israel carried out an airstrike in Qatar's capital, Doha, targeting senior Hamas officials who were reportedly meeting to discuss a US-backed ceasefire proposal. Qatar has served as a mediator in Gaza cease-fire negotiations alongside the United States. According to Hamas, the strike killed five of its members but did not eliminate any senior leadership, while a Qatari official was also reportedly killed.
NATO announced new efforts to bolster air defenses on its Eastern Flank after 19 Russian drones – at least 3 of which were shot down – entered Poland’s airspace during an attack on Ukraine, the first military engagement between NATO and Russia since the start of the war. NATO is investigating whether the airspace incursion was intentional.
Authorities have arrested the individual suspected of shooting and killing 31-year-old Charlie Kirk – the co-founder of Turning Point USA and a prominent conservative voice – at an event at Utah Valley University. Kirk’s death has prompted widespread calls against political violence from voices on the right and left.
Anti-government protests erupted across France the same day that Sébastien Lecornu was sworn in as the country's new prime minister, France's fifth prime minister in less than two years. The "Block Everything" movement had staged the demonstrations prior to Lecornu’s inauguration to oppose proposed budget cuts and express frustration with France's political establishment.
Nepal’s prime minister resigned after at least 22 people were killed and hundreds more injured during youth-led protests sparked by a government ban on social media platforms and widespread allegations of corruption.

What’s happening

Two weeks ago, President Trump ordered the US military to perform a lethal airstrike on a boat that was allegedly operated by members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua (TdA) cartel and trafficking illegal drugs to the US. The strike hit the boat in international waters in the Caribbean Sea and, according to Trump, killed 11 individuals. In his announcement of the strike, Trump labeled the boat operators as “terrorists” and stated, “[p]lease let this serve as notice to anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States of America.”

Information has been unclear on the exact intended destination of the boat. Following the strike, Secretary of State Marco Rubio initially said that the boat was headed to Trinidad, then said the following day that it was headed to the US. It was also reported that the boat may have turned around after it spotted a military aircraft and was headed back to Venezuela when it was struck.

Trump’s fight against Venezuelan cartels: The boat strike is the latest in Trump’s escalation of pressure on cartels. In Jan 2025, Trump ordered that certain international drug cartels, including TdA, be designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs). According to Trump, “[i]nternational cartels constitute a national-security threat beyond that posed by traditional organized crime,” and cartels have “not only destabilized countries with significant importance for our national interests but also flooded the United States with deadly drugs, violent criminals, and vicious gangs.” In Feb 2025 the State Department added TdA to the FTO list.

In Aug 2025, it was reported that Trump signed a directive enabling the Pentagon to use military force against cartels. That same month, the State Department doubled the reward for information leading to the arrest or conviction of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro to $50M. The State Department said that Maduro was a cartel leader who illegitimately took the Venezuelan presidency in 2024 and was stifling democracy in the country.

Over the past month, Trump has deployed US Navy warships, submarines and F-35 fighter jets to the Caribbean for potential targeting of drug traffickers and cartels in the region. Following the strike, Trump said in a letter to the Senate that US forces would be prepared to carry out more military operations. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth similarly indicated that military action “won’t stop” targeting “narco-terrorists.”

Venezuela’s response: Venezuela was swift to condemn the boat strike. Venezuela’s interior minister said this week that none of the 11 people killed on board were drug traffickers nor members of TdA. Maduro called the US deployment in the Caribbean as “unjustifiable, immoral and absolutely criminal.” Two days following the US strike, two Venezuelan F-16 fighter jets flew over a US Navy destroyer, prompting the Pentagon to issue a public warning to Venezuela.

Debate has intensified around the legality and prudence of the US military strike on the boat. Today, we bring you the viewpoints from multiple sides. Let us know what you think.

Notable viewpoints

More opposed to the boat strike:

The strike targeted civilians without justifiable evidence and were illegal.

There is no evidence that the boat was carrying drugs, and even if it was, drug trafficking does not carry punishment by death penalty. Moreover, any punishment should have to be carried out through legal processes and the courts. President Trump does not have the authority to assassinate suspected drug traffickers.
There are a number of significant legal concerns regarding Trump’s ordered strike. It is not clear how the boat and its passengers were legal military targets or combatants partaking in hostilities – they were, rather, likely civilians. Targeting civilians with military strikes violates the Law of War, the US War Crimes Act, and the right to life in human rights law.
“US officials admit they could have interdicted the boat and detained the people on board. They did not pose any imminent threat of violence, and they were not combatants in any war against the US. Calling them "narco-terrorists" does not change these obvious facts… It is not illegal for people on a ship in international waters to transport drugs that are banned in the United States… Perhaps, though I am skeptical, evidence will emerge to prove that the people killed in the strike were planning a dangerous terrorist attack, or the like. Otherwise, the president committed an utterly indefensible and criminal act here.” (Ilya Somin, Reason.)

The strike set a dangerous precedent for the use of US military force that may lead to more conflicts domestically and abroad.

By attacking suspected drug traffickers in international waters, Trump is pulling the US military into crime fighting, which has traditionally been outside of the military’s scope. Trump’s actions violate a foundational American principle that the military should not be used for domestic law enforcement, and set a dangerous precedent for the further militarization of law enforcement.
It is mortifying that Trump used alleged drug trafficking as grounds for military strikes to execute 11 people. Moreover, by redefining drug trafficking as terrorism, Trump may drag the US military into more foreign conflicts under similar pretenses.

More supportive of the boat strike:

The strike eliminated a threat to the US and was in the country’s best interest.

“The President of the United States has determined that narco-terrorist organizations pose a threat to the national security of the United States… They are traffickers of people, they are traffickers of deadly drugs, and they are traffickers of all kinds of illicit means, and they use the money that they generate to destabilize governments in the region, which in and of itself then poses a threat to the United States… If you’re on a boat full of cocaine or fentanyl or whatever headed to the United States, you’re an immediate threat to the United States. And the President, under his authority as Commander-in-Chief, has a right under exigent circumstances to eliminate imminent threats to the United States.” (Secretary of State Marco Rubio.)
Trump acted consistently with the US founders’ vision – it is necessary at times for the president to flex the US’s muscle to dissuade bad actors from threatening the country. Trump ordered the strike against the drug smuggling boat to send a message: do not bring drugs into the US.
The Venezuelan Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang – who spread violence throughout the region and illicit drugs across American streets – effectively operate as pirates on the open seas and are “enemies of all mankind,” affording them no due process protections under the customs of international law. Their existence justifies the lethal use of force in self-defense, and Trump should expand the use of force against similar threats in the name of US national security.

The strike will weaken and deter Venezuelan cartels, which threaten democracy in the region.

The US is right to fight the narco-trafficking that generates income to support Maduro’s dictatorship and Venezuela’s ability to threaten the peace of its neighbors. It is also important to send a signal of the US’s ability and intent to enforce stability in the region.
Venezuela’s cartels traffic drugs and perform kidnapping, extortion, human trafficking, and murder – they are also a tool of Maduro’s dictatorship that repress the Venezuelan population and destabilize democracies in the region. The strike was an effective move to strengthen US national security and disrupt the cartel’s ability to fund Maduro with drug trafficking money.

Give us your feedback! Please let us know how we can improve.

Your feedback

Music on the bottom

I heard an interview recently in which participants discussed the bluegrass tradition of creating upbeat-sounding songs that actually discuss dark material. Hot Rize’s “Shadows In My Room” is a good example.
– Dylan

Listen on Spotify, Apple Music, or Amazon Music.

Trump's attempt to fire Lisa Cook

Eric Thompson — Mon, 08 Sep 2025 02:13:09 GMT

Federal Reserve headquarters in Washington DC. Wikimedia Commons

Snippets

Russia launched its largest drone and missile attack on Ukraine since the war began, reportedly using at least 800 drones and 13 missiles, hitting targets at 33 different locations. At least two people were killed in Kyiv, with total casualty counts not yet clear.
The US military struck a small vessel in the Caribbean – killing 11 – that was allegedly transporting narcotics from Venezuela to the US and operated by the Tren de Aragua gang. The US has deployed military assets to the Caribbean over the past several weeks with a stated aim of cracking down on drug cartels.
In a raid at a Hyundai Motor battery facility under construction in Georgia, immigration authorities arrested 475 immigrants – mostly South Korean nationals – suspected of living and working in the US illegally. It was the largest single-site immigration enforcement operation in the history of the Department of Homeland Security.
The US economy added 22,000 jobs in August according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, below economists’ expectations of 75,000. The unemployment rate also rose to 4.3%, its highest level since 2021.
A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration’s deployment of federal troops to Los Angeles amid anti-ICE protests in June was unlawful, concluding it violated the Posse Comitatus Act by using troops to perform law enforcement duties.

What’s happening

Two weeks ago, in an open letter posted to Truth Social, President Trump ordered the removal of Federal Reserve (Fed) Governor Lisa Cook from her position. In the letter, Trump said that Cook was being fired “for cause” on the grounds that Cook “may have made false statements on one or more mortgage agreements.” These findings stemmed from a criminal referral performed by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, in which Cook was alleged to have claimed properties in both Michigan and Georgia as primary residences to get more favorable loan terms. Trump cited Cook’s actions as "deceitful and potentially criminal” that called into question her “competence and trustworthiness as a financial regulator.”

Cook responded to Trump’s announcement by stating that he did not have the authority to fire her, that no cause existed under law for her removal, and that she would not resign. Cook also filed a lawsuit against Trump and the Federal Reserve to block her removal from the position. As of this writing, a judge is considering Cook’s request for an emergency order that would prevent her from being removed while the lawsuit continues.

The Fed has said that it will continue to carry out its legal duties and that it will abide by any court decision. (Cook continues to be listed as a Board Member.) This past week, the Department of Justice also opened a criminal investigation into Cook’s actions.

The Fed’s Board of Governors: The Federal Reserve, which identifies itself as “an independent government agency… that is ultimately accountable to the public and the Congress,” is led by 7 members of the Board of Governors. Each governor is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and each governor’s term is 14 years long (Lisa Cook was appointed by Joe Biden, and her term is set to run until Jan 2038). According to the Federal Reserve Act, which established the Fed as the central bank of the US in 1913, governors can only be removed from their term “for cause” by the president. Trump v. Wilcox (2025) upheld for-cause removal protections for members of the Board of Governors, determining that the “Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity.”

Trump’s relationship with the Fed: Trump’s announced removal of Cook is the first time in the history of the Fed that a president has attempted to fire a governor for cause. This is the latest in a series of disagreements between the Fed and Trump, who since taking office in Jan 2025 has repeatedly pressured the Fed to lower interest rates.

In Jul 2025 Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent shared that the Trump administration had started a process to replace Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, whose 4-year term as Chair runs until May 2026 and term as board member runs until Jan 2028. Trump has been outwardly critical of Powell for the Fed’s decisions to hold the federal interest rate steady and has suggested that he might fire Powell. Following Trump’s move to fire Cook, he shared that he would soon have a “majority” of his own nominees on the Fed Board of Governors.

Debate has surfaced over the legal merits and potential fiscal implications of firing Cook should Trump’s attempt succeed. Today, we bring you the viewpoints from multiple sides. Let us know what you think.

Notable viewpoints

More opposed to Trump removing Cook from the Federal Reserve:

Trump does not have the legal authority to remove Cook.

Cook has not been convicted or even charged with a crime, and Trump cannot legally fire her on the suspicion of criminal activity. This is yet another example of Trump attempting to remove his political opponents from power to get what he wants.
Attacking Cook with unproven criminal accusations and threats of removal weakens the fundamental principle of the Fed’s independence that was established by the Federal Reserve Act. Federal Reserve governors were given legal protections from at-will removal as a central mechanism of the Fed to protect against monetary policy being misused for political gain at the expense of the economy’s health.

Trump interfering with the Fed and monetary policy would harm the economy.

Trump gaining control of the Fed – which he would effectively be able to accomplish if allowed to fire board members at will – would not be in the best interest of the US. Throughout history, when central banks have gone under the influence of politicians (e.g., in Turkey and Argentina), it has resulted in inflation.
Trump going after Cook undermines trust in the Fed’s independence, which is pivotal to the US’s economic strength. Without trust in the Fed, markets will be forced to price political risks into interest rates, which will increase rates and ultimately costs for families and businesses.
If Trump were to take control of the Fed, he would impulsively make decisions that could have negative long-term consequences for the economy. Democratically-elected officials should not set monetary policy, which would fall subject to short-term, partisan politics and drive poor fiscal results.

More supportive of Trump removing Cook from the Federal Reserve:

Trump has the legal authority to remove Cook.

The Fed effectively operates under the executive branch, with nominees appointed by the president and confirmed by Congress. Article II of the Constitution places the entirety of the executive power with the president, and Myers v. United States (1926) determined that such power includes the ability to remove executive branch officers – this gives Trump the constitutional and statutory authority to fire Cook.
There is no legal reason why Trump should not be allowed to fire Cook. Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020) determined that it was unconstitutional to prevent the president from firing at will a member of an independent agency that executes executive power, a category in which the Fed qualifies.
Despite the effectiveness of the Fed, it is unconstitutional in its current construction. There is no such thing as an independent agency. There are only 3 branches of government, and the Fed is accountable to the executive branch, meaning that Trump has the right to fire anyone at the Fed for any reason.

Cook is not fit to govern at the Fed.

Concerns that Trump firing Cook would threaten the Fed’s independence are overblown. The issue is that Cook’s actions were incompetent at best, and criminal at worst. In either case, she should not be entrusted with financial regulatory powers and should no longer work in a government position.
Personal misconduct does fall under the umbrella of “cause” for firing, and Cook is under criminal investigation for allegedly committing fraud – she does not have protections against being removed from her position.

Give us your feedback! Please let us know how we can improve.

Your feedback

Music on the bottom

New Album from Big Thief! An absolute favorite band of mine. This is their song “Los Angeles.”
– Dylan

Listen on Spotify, Apple Music, or Amazon Music.

Trump's comprehensive review of the Smithsonian

Eric Thompson — Mon, 01 Sep 2025 03:00:46 GMT

The Smithsonian Castle in Washington DC. Nate Lee / Wikimedia Commons

Snippets

The Trump administration fired new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Susan Monarez after she refused to resign. Monarez, who had been in the role for less than a month, reportedly clashed with Health and Human Services Secretary John F Kennedy Jr. Her lawyers said she “refused to rubber-stamp unscientific, reckless directives and…chose protecting the public over serving a political agenda.”
Amtrak launched its new “NextGen Acela” high-speed trains operating between Boston, New York, and Washington DC, a project that cost a total of $2.5B and marked the first upgrade to Acela trains since their debut in 2000. The trains have a max speed of 160 mph – 10 mph faster than the previous generation – and 27% greater passenger capacity.
A 23-year-old assailant opened fire at a church in Minneapolis during a Catholic school Mass on Wednesday, killing two children and injuring 18 others. The shooter, identified as Robin Westman, was found dead from an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound.
The UK, France, and Germany said they would reimpose sanctions on Iran if it did not reengage in talks by the end of August to curb its nuclear program. Sanctions had been lifted in 2015 as part of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a deal set to expire in October. (See our previous coverage of the Iran nuclear talks.)
A federal judge dismissed the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) lawsuit against 15 federal district judges in Maryland that had instituted an order blocking immediate deportations of any migrant in the state that challenged their detention. The judge ruled the DOJ did not have the right to sue, a decision the DOJ has appealed.

What’s happening

Earlier this month, the Trump administration penned an open letter to Smithsonian Institution Secretary Lonnie Bunch to inform Bunch that the White House would be leading a comprehensive review of 8 Smithsonian museums, including the National Museums of American History, Natural History, and African American History and Culture. The White House shared that, in preparation for planned celebrations for the 250th anniversary of America’s founding next July, it aimed to ensure that “our national museums reflect the unity, progress, and enduring values that define the American story.”

The review initiative: The White House said that, “to support a broader vision of excellence that highlights historically accurate, uplifting, and inclusive portrayals of America’s heritage,” the Trump administration will review the selected museums across the following areas: (1) public-facing content; (2) curatorial process; (3) exhibition planning; (4) the use of existing collections; and (5) narrative standards. Within 30 days of the letter's receipt, museums are expected to provide the White House all requested materials (e.g., current exhibition content; internal curatorial guidelines; planned programming for America 250) for review. If deemed necessary by the Trump administration, museums are expected to begin correcting content within 120 days, “replacing divisive or ideologically driven language” with content that is “unifying, historically accurate, and constructive.”

Trump’s sentiments: Trump has been pushing for American institutions to “celebrate American exceptionalism" for months. In Mar 2025, Trump issued the Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History Executive Order, in which Trump singled out the Smithsonian for “com[ing] under the influence of divisive, race-centered ideology.” In that same order, Trump instructed that the Smithsonian “eliminate improper, divisive, or anti-American ideology” from its museums.

Last week, following the White House’s letter to the Smithsonian, Trump posted that museums around the country are “the last remaining segment of ‘WOKE,’” and that “[t]he Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been.” The White House followed up on Trump’s post by listing a number of exhibits across Smithsonian museums it took issue with, including exhibits and art focusing on antiracism, LGBTQ+ history, and undocumented immigrants.

Debate has ramped up over whether the Trump administration is justified in conducting a review of the Smithsonian museums. Today, we bring you the viewpoints from multiple sides. Let us know what you think.

Notable viewpoints

More supportive of the Trump administration’s review orders:

The Smithsonian is funded by American taxpayers and therefore should be held accountable to better reflect the values of the nation.

Trump is right to order a review on the Smithsonian, which receives 62% of its funding from the federal government. If an organization takes federal funds, then the federal government and its leaders can impose conditions on that funding.
The Trump administration is freeing American culture from the influence of museums run by professionals that are overwhelmingly liberal – a 2016 study found that 89% of museum directors, 94% of museum curators, and 88% of historians are Democrats – and are using museums to force “woke” ideologies on the American public. The Smithsonian, as a largely taxpayer-funded institution, should reflect the values of the American people and not simply promote a liberal world view.

Trump would be justified in removing anti-American and politically one-sided content from museums, which fail to properly acknowledge what makes America great.

Trump does not want to censor or twist uncomfortable historical facts within the Smithsonian museums; rather, he wants to remove an anti-American sentiment that has become pervasive in publicly funded exhibits, and he should be applauded for doing so.
“The story of history changes over time… This is not to say that one version of events… is right or wrong. But what is wrong is to ignore the arguments in favor of American greatness so as to only expose our dark underbelly.” (David Marcus, Fox News.)
The Smithsonian’s stated purpose is “the increase and diffusion of knowledge,” but the institution has instead been pushing a fringe ideology that the US’s history is irredeemable and built off of systemic oppression and racism. As a national museum, the Smithsonian should minimize politicized ideology and instead reflect a consensus history showcasing the people, principles, and progress that make this country great. For example, slavery and racism are key, shameful parts of US history that should be presented in museums, but these museums should also show the sacrifices that Americans made to defeat these injustices.

More opposed to the Trump administration’s review orders:

Trump’s order will hamper historians’ ability to provide the American public an accurate and evidence-based accounting of American history.

“If [the museum exhibits] are taken out of the hands of historians, the public stands to lose a great deal in having reliable and engaging content that tells a whole and complex story of the American past.” (Sarah Weicksel, Executive Director of the American Historical Association.)
Trump is declaring war on historians’ profession, training, and integrity and is threatening the future of free education and free thinking rooted in evidence and research. Trump wants to erase decades’ worth of scholarship and replace it with right-wing propaganda.

Trump’s order amounts to whitewashing America’s history of oppression and will not promote American exceptionalism nor help the nation improve.

Removing depictions of racism from American history is the antithesis of promoting American exceptionalism. America is exceptional because the country strives towards an ideal that can never be met, which is why the US evolves faster than any other country in the world. Because of this, it is important to highlight when America has fallen short of those ideals (e.g., slavery), so that we can continue to strive towards improvement as a country.
The Trump administration is trying to whitewash US history and ignore America’s history of oppression against people of different races, genders, ethnicities, sexualities, and economic classes. The administration does not want the American public to confront this oppression and feel shame – but there is nothing wrong with accepting that shame, as it will help future generations prevent further injustices.
Trump is effectively promoting a white nationalist view of American history that minimizes the contributions and experiences of black and brown people in the country. As part of this, the Trump administration is trying to influence how racial history is taught in America’s public forums.

Give us your feedback! Please let us know how we can improve.

Your feedback

Music on the bottom

Deer Tick is one of my favorite bands, and I think you should strongly consider adding them to your rotation. Their song “Art Isn't Real (City Of Sin)” gives a good example as to why.
- Dylan

Listen on Spotify, Apple Music, or Amazon Music.

Trump's approach to Ukraine-Russia peace negotiations

Eric Thompson — Sun, 24 Aug 2025 22:59:16 GMT

President Trump meets Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Aug 15. US Department of Defense / Wikimedia Commons

Quick announcement

Hey everyone, welcome back to Framechange! We hope you’ve had a great summer. With all of the news happening right now, it feels good to dive back into exploring complex topics from multiple sides. As always, let us know what you’d like us to cover next – we’re listening and excited to dig in together.

Dylan

Snippets

California lawmakers passed a redistricting plan favoring Democrats that counters similar measures in Texas that would create 5 more Republican House seats ahead of the 2026 midterms. California Governor Gavin Newsom declared a special election on Nov 4 to invite voters to approve the new congressional maps.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has authorized National Guard troops patrolling Washington, DC to carry weapons, though it is unclear the extent to which troops will be armed. The number of troops also increased from 800 to roughly 2,000 after 6 Republican-led states sent additional troops to assist Trump’s effort to address what he called “out of control” crime in the city.
The UN’s global hunger monitor stated that roughly 514,000 people in Gaza City and its surrounding areas are suffering from famine, the first official declaration that conditions in the region have reached famine level.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) will downsize its personnel by up to 40% and dissolve several agency centers as part of a sweeping restructuring initiative. The cuts are expected to reduce the agency’s budget by $700 million.
The state of Florida appealed a court order to shut down a controversial immigration center in the Everglades known as “Alligator Alcatraz” within 60 days due to environmental concerns.

What’s happening

Over the past 10 days, President Trump has engaged in a series of meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and a number of European leaders as part of a diplomatic push to end the Ukraine-Russia war.

Trump’s meeting with Putin: On Aug 15, Trump held a face-to-face summit with Putin in Anchorage, Alaska to discuss the war in Ukraine. Trump, who reportedly had intended to secure a ceasefire at the summit, issued a warning prior to the meeting that there would be “severe consequences” for Russia if Putin did not agree to end the war.

Trump and Putin met in private and ended the summit by each issuing a statement. Putin said that Russia was “sincerely interested” in ending the war, but first had to “eliminate all the primary roots, the primary causes of that conflict.” Trump, following Putin’s statement, called the meeting “productive.” And while admitting that a deal to end the war had not been reached, Trump said that “we've made some headway” and that he and Putin agreed on most points.

Following the meeting, Trump posted that “the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up.” This represented a change from Trump’s pre-summit demand for a ceasefire, which Ukrainian officials continue to push for. Trump reportedly informed Zelenskyy that Putin wanted Ukraine to cede the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, two territories under Ukrainian control that Russia and Ukraine have been fighting over for more than a decade, as a condition to ending the war. Prior to the summit, Zelenskyy had stated Ukraine would not withdraw from any territories it controlled.

Trump’s meeting with Zelenskyy and European leaders: On Aug 18, Trump hosted Zelenskyy as well as the heads of France, Britain, Finland, Germany, Italy, the EU, and NATO at the White House. As part of the meeting, Trump declared that the US would “help” and “be involved” in providing Ukraine with security guarantees as part of any deal to end the war with Russia. (Ukraine is not a member of NATO, but at the meeting, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte discussed the potential for providing Ukraine “Article-5-type of security guarantees,” referring to NATO’s principle of collective defense.)

Trump did not elaborate on what kind of support the US would provide – he has promised that no US troops will be on the ground, but it is being reported that US air power could be offered. In response to the White House meeting and discussion of security guarantees, the Russian Foreign Ministry said it would "categorically" reject "a military contingent with the participation of NATO countries" inside Ukraine.

Looking forward: Trump is trying to arrange a meeting between Zelenskyy and Putin to further peace talks. (It is unclear whether Trump would also be in attendance.) Russia, which reportedly had shown interest in a sit-down between Putin and Zelenskyy during the Alaska summit, this week changed its tone and downplayed the chance of a meeting by saying that the peace talk process should be performed “step by step, gradually.”

As the situation evolves, debate continues over whether Trump has taken the right approach toward achieving peace between Ukraine and Russia. Today, we bring you the viewpoints from multiple sides. Let us know what you think.

Notable viewpoints

More opposed to Trump’s peacemaking approach:

Trump has rewarded Putin, a dictator and war criminal.

“The fact that this meeting even took place – at the invitation of President Trump, on American soil, without Ukraine present, and with zero concessions from Russia – is an undeserved reward for Putin, who has continued to… refuse to negotiate meaningfully about an end to the horrific war he started. President Trump should have pressured Putin by imposing crushing sanctions… and providing Ukraine with the tools it needs to defend itself. Instead, by quite literally rolling out the red carpet, Trump has legitimized Russia’s aggression and whitewashed Putin’s war crimes. It’s shameful.” (Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-New York.)
In taking the meeting with Putin, Trump ignored US sanctions against Russia as well as an international arrest warrant for Putin. Trump effectively sided with Putin against the rest of the democratic world and damaged the US’s position as a global supporter of democracy.
Trump does not understand that Putin does not make deals with others, but instead takes whatever he can until stopped by force. By appeasing Putin with a meeting and not following through on the “severe consequences” he threatened if a ceasefire wasn’t reached, Trump did not get any closer to a peace deal. Instead, he signaled that Putin, who is radical in his desire to control Ukraine, does not have to take peace talks seriously.

Trump’s approach will not bring peace to Ukraine.

In diplomacy, Trump focuses on optics over substance and attention to detail, and his vague and contradictory peacemaking tactics will not bring peace to Ukraine. For example, neither Ukraine nor Russia will agree to the terms he is currently suggesting to end the conflict – Ukraine will not agree to give up land it controls, and Russia will not agree to Ukraine getting a security guarantee from the US.
The Trump Administration, by continuously refusing to take more punitive action against Russia throughout the Ukraine war, has emboldened Russia to continue the war and undermined Ukraine’s ability to negotiate for peace.
Trump did not push back on Putin’s demands that Ukraine abandon Donetsk and Luhansk, which are currently under Ukrainian control. Relinquishing these territories would leave Ukraine exposed to future Russian aggression. Any deal in which Russia gains control of Donetsk and Luhansk would essentially equate to Ukraine’s surrender.
Following the Alaska summit, Putin is showing no serious interest in a peace deal – just last week, Russia carried out some of its largest drone and missile strikes of the war. Trump has been played by Putin, and he will not achieve sustainable peace for Ukraine unless he deploys a much harder policy against Russia.

More supportive of Trump’s peacemaking approach:

Trump has not favored Putin and has engaged in necessary diplomacy with both sides.

Trump did not align himself with Putin, he aligned himself with the reality that Russia maintains leverage over Ukraine on the battlefield, and that the best that Ukraine can hope for is a peace negotiation in which Putin drops some of his more extreme demands, including that Ukraine demilitarize. If Trump having held a meeting with Putin gets Putin to reduce his demands, then it was worth it.
“[C]ritics are treating the very existence of contacts between leaders as a surrender. And by doing so, they're boxing themselves into a dangerous, pro-war position… if the president can't even deign to talk to foreign rivals, then it becomes impossible to avoid or end violent conflict…There may be better or worse strategies to end the war – but refusing to talk is no strategy at all.” (Matthew Petti, Reason.)
Trump’s ambition to end the war is commendable, but it is a difficult situation. In Putin and Zelenskyy, Trump is dealing with two leaders who are unwilling to budge on their positions, and the only way to end the conflict is if both leaders make middle-ground concessions.

Trump’s actions have increased the likelihood of peace in Ukraine.

Trump’s meeting with Putin was a step towards peace, where both leaders have opened a dialogue and appear willing to continue the conversation. The summit represented progress and has renewed diplomatic energy and optimism throughout Europe for ending the war.
Trump genuinely wants to create a lasting peace in Ukraine, which is why he’s committing to providing security guarantees to Ukraine as part of a peace negotiation. Trump deserves praise for his preparedness to work alongside European allies to enforce stability throughout the region.
Trump has significantly raised the probability of ending the war. He has the ability to create peace in Ukraine, and can do so by reinforcing his security guarantees to Ukraine, leveraging his skills of strategic ambiguity by going back to threatening Russia with military muscle and sanctions, and supporting US legislation that would provide military assistance to Ukraine.
Even if Trump’s attempt to end the Ukraine war fails, Trump was not wrong for trying – wanting to end a brutal war is a good thing. Moreover, Trump’s actions have improved conversations between Russia and the US and may encourage further diplomatic activity that moves Ukraine closer to peace.

Give us your feedback! Please let us know how we can improve.

Your feedback

Music on the bottom

Hiss Golden Messenger makes beautiful music that lives somewhere in the space between country, folk, and even gospel. “Jesus Shot Me in the Head” is no exception. - Dylan

Listen on Spotify, Apple Music, or Amazon Music.

The America Party

Eric Thompson — Mon, 21 Jul 2025 03:07:54 GMT

Elon Musk in 2025 prior to his divergence from President Trump. Gage Skidmore / Wikimedia Commons

Quick announcement

We’ll be on a mid-summer hiatus over the next 3 weeks to enjoy some travel and recharge. I hope you’re able to find time for some summer adventure as well!

In the meantime, our partners at Braver Angels are hosting a national debate on July 31 at 8pm EST focused on Robert F Kennedy Jr’s healthcare policy agenda. It poses an interesting question: Do RFK Jr and the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement have the right approach to improving Americans' health, or do they unfairly discount the benefits of existing science and treatments?

If you’ve never been to a Braver Angels debate, it’s unlike any other – thoughtful, civil, and designed for active participation from folks across the political spectrum. I highly recommend checking one out. You can register for the July 31 event here.

While we’re on break, we'd love to hear any thoughts you have on this week’s edition, future topics requests, or anything else on your mind – feel free to reply!

See you again in 3 weeks.

Dylan

Snippets

Israel and Syria agreed to a ceasefire after Israeli forces struck targets in the Syrian capital of Damascus last week. The strikes were in response to the Syrian government’s intervention in clashes between the Druze and Bedouin groups in southern Syria that resulted in a reported 900+ killed – the Syrian government was blamed for joining in attacks on the Druze, a minority group with ties to Israel.
The Senate narrowly passed a rescissions package that would cut $9B in funding to public broadcasting and global aid programs. It will go to the House of Representatives for a final vote.
President Trump called for the release of grand jury testimony in the federal child sex trafficking case involving the late Jeffrey Epstein, following public calls for transparency regarding Trump’s past ties to Epstein. The Department of Justice formally filed the motion on Friday to unseal the transcripts.
Ukraine offered to engage in a new round of peace talks with Russia this week after the Kremlin said Putin was ready to move forward with negotiations while maintaining a focus on its primary war objectives. Last week, Trump threatened harsher sanctions on Russia if a peace deal was not reached within 50 days.
President Trump denied recent reports that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent talked him out of firing Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. Trump has expressed dissatisfaction with Powell’s handling of interest rates and has repeatedly called for his departure, but said earlier this week it was “unlikely” he would fire him.

What’s happening

Earlier this month, Elon Musk announced plans to form a new political party named the America Party. Musk’s announcement was the culmination of a public distancing with President Trump after Musk, who donated $288M toward the election of Trump and other Republican candidates in 2024, left his position as head of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in May. The apparent impetus for Musk’s announcement was the signing of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) into law – Musk had been a vocal opponent of OBBBA, saying the bill’s tax breaks and government spending would add to the national deficit and “bankrupt the country.”

Why the America Party: Musk said he has formed the America Party to address the “waste & graft” in the current political system and represent the politics of the “80% in the middle” in the US.

It is currently unclear whether the America Party has been formally created or what the new party’s platform would fully encompass, but on X Musk agreed with appeals for the party to focus on reducing debt, modernizing the military with AI, decreasing regulation in energy among other areas, supporting pronatalism, and taking centrist positions elsewhere. Musk has said that the America Party’s strategy may be to focus its efforts on winning “just 2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts” in Congress. Considering the tight margins in Congress, this number of seats could be enough to sway legislative outcomes. Musk said the America Party would caucus independently.

Third-party movements: The America Party would be the latest high-profile third-party movement in American history, joining the Green Party, Libertarian Party, Ross Perot’s Reform Party, George Wallace’s American Independent Party, and Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive/Bull Moose Party – among others – in challenging the political dominance of the Democratic and Republican parties over the past 165+ years. Since 1860, all US presidents have been either a Democrat or Republican. In Congress since 1900, only around 130 independent or third-party candidates have won a House or Senate election out of nearly 30,000 seat elections.

Following Musk’s announcement, debate has surfaced on the merits of political third parties in the US and the potential impact of the America Party on American politics. Today, we bring you the viewpoints from multiple sides. Let us know what you think.

Notable viewpoints

More supportive of forming the America Party:

Americans want a third major party to better represent political views in the US.

The current political party duopoly in the US needs to be overhauled, and a third major political party “would be good for America.” Americans agree on more political issues than we realize – particularly around the national deficit – and more US adults identify as political independents than ever before.
Opposing the formation of the America Party is undemocratic, as it ignores the prevailing feeling among many Americans that their politicians aren’t adequately representing their views. According to a 2024 Gallup poll, 58% of American adults say that a third major political party is needed because the Republican and Democratic parties do a poor job of representing the American people.
Even if the America Party fails, it is a necessary attempt toward breaking up the two-party political system that is increasingly alienating Americans. It is telling that – according to a Quantus Insights poll – 40% of registered voters say they’d be very likely or somewhat likely to vote for an America Party candidate.

The America Party could effect real change in the legislative branch.

Third parties have been ineffective in the US because they have traditionally been focused on presidential races, in which it is almost impossible for a third-party candidate to secure the necessary electoral votes to win. The America Party, however, in going after a handful of specific Senate and House seats, could win enough contests to gain serious leverage in Congress.

The announcement of the America Party highlights the importance of addressing the national deficit.

Musk is forming the America Party largely to address the national debt, which Musk says is an existential threat to the future of the US, and neither the Democratic nor the Republican party seems capable of solving this issue. The America Party may not become a meaningful movement, but it has brought attention to an important problem.
“Elon shares [a lot] in common with a lot of other folks I talk to who want to see some kind of middle ground or balance. The problem is: In our two-party system, you get whipsawed either one direction or the other… the deficit in spending, neither party has done a good job of addressing it, because as soon as they’re in power, they don’t want to make the tough choices.” (Andrew Yang, Forward Party.)

More opposed to forming the America Party:

Third parties are ineffective in American politics.

Throughout US history, third parties have not succeeded politically and have been largely irrelevant. In fact, during elections, third-party candidates have traditionally helped candidates that are most opposed to the third-party movement win elections.
There is no need for a new political party. There are already 55+ political “third parties” that have ballot access in at least one US state, and 65M registered voters in the US are neither Democrats nor Republicans. What Musk wants to do with the America Party isn’t novel – there are already third parties for almost any political belief system, and yet Americans still do not feel compelled enough to vote for them.

Without larger electoral reforms, a third major party would hurt the American political system.

In the current system of single-winner plurality elections in the US, third parties do not have a legitimate chance to win, and at best can play as occasional spoilers. Moreover, the weakening of the two major political parties by unserious third parties could lead to a chaotic political system that ultimately hurts American democracy. Creating a sustainable multiparty system requires larger voting reforms like instituting fusion voting and proportional representation.
“A bona fide third party – without ranked choice voting up and down the ballot – would destabilize the American political system, increasing opportunities for minority rule or dysfunctional, tenuous governing coalitions.” (Bill Scher, Washington Monthly.)

Americans don’t actually want a centrist third party.

Americans say they love the idea of third parties, but don’t actually want to vote for a centrist party that occupies a political space between Democrats and Republicans. One 2024 study found that disaffected partisans (i.e., those that are disillusioned with their political party) are just as polarized in their views as those who aren’t disaffected, and would not necessarily converge to a centrist party.
Two-thirds of Americans may be part of the “exhausted majority” who are tired of political polarization, want compromise, and feel that neither the Republican nor Democratic parties are listening to them. But this does not mean Americans want a moderate middle in political policies, as these tired voters do not actually agree on many issues. Without any true alignment around political ideologies, any third major party would rely upon the personality and rhetoric of its leader for purpose, which lends itself to “demagoguery” and poorly-run political coalitions.

Give us your feedback! Please let us know how we can improve.

Your feedback

Music on the bottom

Geese is another band that is insanely talented and the right amount of weird – go see them live if you can. This is their latest song, “Taxes.” - Dylan

Listen on Spotify, Apple Music, or Amazon Music.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act

Eric Thompson — Mon, 14 Jul 2025 00:03:48 GMT

President Trump signs the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law. White House / Wikimedia Commons.

Snippets

President Trump visited central Texas to survey damage from the catastrophic flooding last weekend that killed more than 120 people. At least 150 are still missing.
The Trump administration announced that it will impose 30% tariffs on imports from the European Union and Mexico starting Aug 1. President Trump also announced plans to impose 50% tariffs on all Brazilian goods partly in response to the country’s “unfair” trade relationship with the US.
A New Hampshire federal judge issued a new nationwide block against President Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship. The pause comes after a Supreme Court ruling last month that placed limitations on the power of federal judges in issuing universal injunctions.
The State Department began issuing termination notices to more than 1,300 government employees as part of the Trump administration’s effort to downsize the federal workforce.
Russia launched multiple large-scale aerial attacks against Ukraine last week, including one that involved a record 728 drones. The escalation comes after President Trump accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of impeding a peace deal and pledged more military support for Kyiv.

What’s happening

President Trump recently signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), after the House and Senate narrowly voted to pass it. The 900+ page OBBBA is sprawling, but at its core solidifies $4.5T in tax breaks originally enacted in Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), which were set to expire on Dec 31, 2025. It also adds new tax breaks and makes significant budgetary changes.

Tax breaks: Among the most notable implications for taxpayers, the bill permanently extends the lower tax rates that were established by the TCJA, with the maximum tax rate for individuals, estates, and trusts set at 37% (as opposed to the 39.6% prior to TCJA). OBBBA also extends the child tax credit and increases it from $2,000 to $2,500 per qualified child (i.e., one with a Social Security number and US citizenship) for 2025-2028. The bill increases the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap from $10,000 to $40,000 for all tax years 2025 and beyond, until the $10,000 cap reverts in 2030.

For businesses, OBBBA makes permanent the qualified business income deduction (also known as the pass-through income deduction), and increases it from 20% to 23%. Under the bill, qualifying workers will – through 2028 – see their first $25,000 in tips exempt from income taxes, with the deduction decreasing if their total income exceeds $150,000.

Program restrictions and additions: Among the most noteworthy changes, OBBBA cuts spending for Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps) by roughly $1.2T through 2034, primarily by imposing stricter work requirements for eligibility. OBBBA also rolls back and phases out clean-energy tax credits that were expanded in 2022 under President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. Conversely, the program directs $150B in new funding to the Department of Defense (DoD) and another $165B to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

In the wake of this historic bill passing into law, a variety of diverging opinions have been put forward on whether OBBBA will help or hurt the US. Today, we bring you the viewpoints from multiple sides. Let us know what you think.

Notable viewpoints

More opposed to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act:

The bill exemplifies poor fiscal discipline and will harm the US economy in the long run.

OBBBA does not promote long-term economic growth. Rather, it relies upon a short-term bump from tax cuts at the cost of driving an estimated $3.9T+ to the national debt by 2034. Furthermore, OBBBA is not a serious tax reform, as the bill increases wasteful government spending and handouts in the form of tax credits worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Cutting taxes without cutting government spending simply increases the debt crisis for future generations.
OBBBA is disingenuous in its approach towards decreasing spending, as the bill does not address the entitlement programs that cost the US the most money. It’s reasonable to reduce spending on Medicaid, but it should be coupled with reduced spending within Medicare and Social Security. Instead, OBBBA provides tax-deductions to seniors.

The bill disproportionately benefits wealthier Americans while hurting poorer Americans.

Under OBBBA’s tax cuts, by 2027, individuals earning more than $1M in annual income will enjoy a nominal after-tax income boost over 800x larger than that enjoyed by the lowest earners. Moreover, the small tax cuts granted to the lowest earners by OBBBA are offset by cuts to social programs such as Medicaid, which are effectively taking healthcare away from working Americans. In total, the bottom quintile of Americans will see a net decline in resources under OBBBA while the top 1% will see an increase of $30,000 each.
In order to pay for individual tax cuts, OBBBA will kick an estimated 11.8M lower-income Americans off of their health insurance by 2034. The cuts are so bad and widespread that Republicans added a $50B “rural health fund” to OBBBA to try to offset the damage that will be felt by their own constituents.
OBBBA continues and expands the practice of the qualified business income deduction, which is a primary driver of income inequality in the US – over 70% of all qualified business income goes to the top 1% of earners. Under OBBBA, qualified business income tax breaks will add an estimated $736B-$820B to the national deficit, and over half of that amount will go to millionaires.
OBBBA’s cuts to Medicaid and food stamps will reduce after-tax income for the bottom 60% of US households, increase healthcare premium costs for American families that get their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act marketplace, create higher energy prices by ending clean-energy subsidies, and lead to higher mortgage rates from increased federal borrowing.
The cost of college, along with student debt, will dramatically increase as OBBBA dismantles the existing student debt repayment program that provides favorable terms to lower- and middle-income US families.

The bill threatens the future of American excellence.

OBBBA neglects the foundation of what makes the US successful. For instance, repealing tax credits for clean energy investments will harm the future of American energy production as well as developing technologies like AI that are dependent on it. Moreover, OBBBA threatens American economic debt-to-GDP stability, making it a riskier place to invest.

More supportive of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act:

The bill will drive financial growth for American businesses and workers.

The policies being enacted by OBBBA have worked previously. Following the 2017 tax cuts, which the bill makes permanent, the unemployment rate hit a 50-year low of 3.5% in 2019 while median household income rose by $4,400 (almost 7%). Moreover, the qualified business income deduction program, also enacted in 2017, supported 2.6M workers earning $161B in 2024 while generating $325B of GDP. Looking at the next 4 years, according to the Trump administration’s Council of Economic Advisers, the OBBBA will increase GDP by up to 4.9% and increase annual real wages by up to $7,200.
OBBBA takes care of American workers, as it will redirect an estimated $249B in annual wages paid to undocumented immigrants to lawful American workers. OBBBA also formalizes no tax on tips or overtime pay, which will boost earnings for the working class, and makes permanent Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, under which the net worth of the bottom 50% of American households increased faster than the net worth of the top 10%.
In extending the 2017 tax cuts, OBBBA will provide businesses with the confidence needed to make long-term investments, hire, and expand. In continuing the qualified business income deduction program, OBBBA will generate an estimated 1M+ new jobs and $750B+ in economic growth over the next decade.
OBBBA will provide financial relief to working families through the bill’s higher child tax credit, which 47M American families currently claim. The typical family will get up to $10,900 in additional pay. OBBBA further supports working families by expanding access to the child care credit and making the paid leave tax credit permanent.
The bill had to happen. If the 2017 tax cuts were allowed to expire at the end of 2025, Americans would have been hit with a $4.5T tax hike.

The bill promotes social and fiscal accountability among the American population.

While Democrats tout the CBO’s estimate that OBBBA may result in 7.8M Americans losing Medicaid access by 2034, they ignore the fact that roughly 4.8M of those in the estimate would lose access simply because they don’t currently meet the bill’s requirement that healthy, prime-age adults work or volunteer at least 20 hours a week to receive it. Americans should be required to provide basic productivity back to the country in order to receive entitlements.
OBBBA will reform student loans. In putting a cap on graduate loans, the bill makes it harder for universities to raise tuition in pursuit of higher loan subsidies. OBBBA will also crack down on state-level schemes that effectively abuse food-stamp programs by wrongly expanding usage through, for example, waiving work requirements for food stamp eligibility.

The bill makes the US safer.

OBBBA supports a stronger US border by allocating tens of billions to the DHS to secure our borders as well as arrest and deport criminal undocumented immigrants. Doing this will allow DHS to prevent gang-related crimes such as human trafficking and smuggling as well as defend against foreign terrorist organizations.

Give us your feedback! Please let us know how we can improve.

Your feedback

Music on the bottom

Always good to mix a train song in. Enjoy this rendition of “Slow Train” by Bob Dylan and the Good Ol' Grateful Dead. - Dylan

Listen on Spotify, Apple Music, or Amazon Music.

The Israel-Iran conflict

Tue, 01 Jul 2025 04:40:17 GMT

Explosions in Tehran in June. Wikimedia Commons

Quick announcement

We’re taking a one-week hiatus in recognition of the July 4th holiday and will be back in action the following week. I hope everyone’s having a great summer so far and gets to spend some quality time with loved ones this weekend.

Dylan

Snippets

The Senate voted to advance the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to a final vote expected late Monday or early Tuesday, after several weeks of public debate. The bill would extend tax cuts, increase spending on defense and immigration enforcement, and reduce some social benefit programs.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to limit federal judges’ ability to issue universal injunctions that prevent the US government from enforcing a law nationwide. Federal judges have been issuing orders to block President Trump’s executive orders, including the order to end birthright citizenship.
New York state assemblyman and self-identified democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani declared victory in New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary after former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo conceded the election. Mamdani received nearly 44% of the votes to Cuomo’s 36%.
NATO countries agreed to spend 5% of their gross domestic product (GDP) on defense and security-related spending by 2035. The previous defense-spending target was 2%.
US-Canada trade talks have resumed after Canada rescinded a digital-services tax on American tech firms. Canada is attempting to reach a trade agreement in which the US would lift its current tariffs on steel and aluminum.

What’s happening

It's been nearly three weeks since Israel first carried out surprise airstrikes targeting a number of nuclear and military sites in Iran as part of Operation Rising Lion, a military campaign to inhibit Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons. Over the course of 12 days, Israel conducted missile attacks across Iran on locations such as uranium enrichment facilities, weapons facilities, and government buildings including Iran's state broadcaster. The attacks killed hundreds of people, including Iranian military leadership, nuclear scientists, and civilians. Iran retaliated by attacking Israel with missile strikes of its own.

On June 22, the US conducted Operation Midnight Hammer, a multipronged attack on Iran that culminated in US B-2 Spirit bombers and submarines attacking three key Iranian nuclear sites at Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan. The operation was conducted, as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth put it, “to destroy or severely degrade Iran’s nuclear program.” Following the US strikes, President Trump, who had previously shared that he had given Iran a “60-day ultimatum” to make a deal to limit its nuclear program, made a speech in which he said the strikes were a “spectacular military success,” and that they “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear sites. The following day, Iran launched multiple missiles against Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the largest American military base in the Middle East. No US casualties were reported.

President Trump, following Iran’s attack and additional Israeli strikes on Iran, declared that Israel and Iran had agreed to a ceasefire. Following Trump’s announcement, Iranian state television said that the ceasefire was “imposed,” but Iran then fired another missile strike at Israel. In turn, Israel briefly violated the ceasefire by firing its own missiles at Iran, but the ceasefire has tentatively held since.

Were the US bombings successful? Conflicting intelligence has left the success of the US attacks uncertain. Initially following the ceasefire, a leaked intelligence report written by the US Defense Intelligence Agency reported that, based on the damage assessment, the US bombings of the 3 Iranian nuclear sites only set Iran’s nuclear program back several months – another analysis based on intercepted communications between Iranian officials indicated the attacks were not as destructive as expected. The Trump administration has refuted these reports. Separately, a preliminary report provided to European leaders assessed that Iran’s highly enriched uranium resources are mostly intact following the US strikes. Israel produced its own report declaring the Fordo site “inoperable” following the US bombing, and that the Israel-US attacks on Iran had set back Iran’s nuclear weapon ambitions “many years.”

What were Iran’s nuclear capabilities? Since 1970, Iran has committed to not possessing a nuclear weapon as part of its membership in the broad Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Iran is also party to the more restrictive Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – the JCPOA, however, is set to expire on Oct 18, which would technically free Iran from many of its current nuclear limits. Prior to Israel’s first attacks, the US and Iran had held negotiations as the JCPOA moved closer to expiration. (See our Apr 26 edition for more on the Iran nuclear talks.)

On the day of Israel’s first attacks, the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a report that Iran was in violation of its non-proliferation obligations. The IAEA shared its “serious concern regarding the rapid accumulation of highly enriched uranium by Iran,” particularly because Iran is the only country in the world without nuclear weapons that is producing that material. Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its Atomic Energy Organization replied to the IAEA’s report, calling it “politically motivated” and saying that in response to the report, Iran would launch a new enrichment facility.

In the aftermath of the exchanges between Israel, Iran, and the US, Iranian officials have said 935 people were killed in the strikes. In Israel, 28 people have been reported dead from the Iranian missile attacks. Debate continues over whether the decisions to attack Iran were effective ones. Today, we bring you the viewpoints from multiple sides. Let us know what you think.

Notable viewpoints

More opposed to the strikes on Iran:

Bombing Iran will not destroy Iran’s nuclear program or topple the current Iranian regime.

The US does not know whether it completely destroyed Iran’s nuclear capabilities – Iran still has a stockpile of enriched uranium, and Iran claims that the damage done by the US strikes is not irreversible. Because of these attacks, the Iranian government will likely escalate its nuclear activities, stop cooperating with the international community on proliferation, and rebuild its nuclear program in secret.
As Israeli National Security Advisor Tzachi Hanegbi said, military attacks alone will not destroy Iran’s nuclear program, and the best way to remove Iran’s nuclear threat is through a regime change. That said, it is very difficult to force a regime change through external pressure. Moreover, even if there was a regime change, it’s likely that any successor regime would still want to have nuclear weapons.

The US erred in intervening militarily in Iran.

According to the US Intelligence Committee, Iran was not building a nuclear bomb. Trump disregarded his own country’s intelligence services, and instead chose to believe Netanyahu, who wanted the US to become militarily involved with Iran.
Diplomacy with Iran had been working. The JCPOA had proven effective in preventing Iran from building a nuclear weapon, despite the fact that it had given Iran concessions such as sanctions relief. By attacking Iran, the US has removed the possibility of coming to a better deal with Iran than the JCPOA. Instead, the US has pushed Iran closer to war or the possession of a nuclear weapon.
Trump violated the War Powers Act of 1973 and broke constitutional law by ordering an attack that was not accompanied by a declaration of war, not authorized by Congress, and not in response to an attack on American soil or troops.

The US and Israel’s decisions to attack Iran have made the world less safe.

Retaliatory missile strikes from Iran killed 28 people in Israel, wounded 500+ more, and paralyzed the Israeli economy. The damage that Israel suffered from Iran’s response to Israel’s bombing outweighs the unlikely threat posed by Iran’s hypothetical nuclear bomb.
The US bombing of Iran will compel Iran and associated terrorist organizations to carry out attacks against US people, facilities, and assets throughout the Middle East, which will inevitably lead to the US becoming involved in a prolonged and dangerous military conflict.
Israeli and US strikes on Iran could precipitate the downfall of the current Iranian regime, but a regime change may just drive additional instability and crises if another bad actor takes control. Furthermore, the fall of the Islamic Republic in multi-ethnic Iran could lead to a power vacuum, a fragmentation of the country’s population, and more violence akin to what happened in Iraq following the US invasion in 2003.

More supportive of the strikes on Iran:

Israel had a right to defend itself against a clear existential threat.

Iran has outwardly called for the annihilation of Israel for decades, continues to pursue developing a nuclear bomb in violation of non-proliferation obligations, has been actively exploring military plans to destroy Israel, and disregarded Trump’s 60-day deadline for a deal to limit its nuclear capabilities. Iran poses an existential threat to Israel, and Iran’s actions forced Israel to preemptively strike to defend itself.
In the aftermath of the October 7 attacks, Israel was right to go on a maximalist offensive against forces that wish to see Israel cease to exist. Iran is the central source of instability in the Middle East and a true enemy of Western values, and Israel is acting as a source of good for the world by seeking to remove the Iranian threat.

There was a clear rationale for the US to bomb Iran.

Trump did not join or start a conflict with Iran by bombing the nuclear sites, as Iran has been waging war against the US for decades through military attacks and supporting terrorist organizations that have resulted in the death of 1,000 Americans over the past 40 years. The Iranian government has called for “death to America” for years, and a nuclear Iran would pose a severe threat to the US.
Whether or not the Iranian government had ordered the construction of a nuclear weapon, Iran’s nuclear program was preparing to do so. In the past year, Iran had increasingly discussed nuclear weapons in public, and Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium was, as Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard put it, “unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.” Iran could have developed weapons-grade uranium within weeks, and potentially have made a nuclear weapon within months.
Trump’s decision to bomb Iran now was tactically prudent, necessary, and in support of a legitimate strategic objective. The US could not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, as it would forever change US security dynamics, and Iran clearly intended to develop one. By attacking now, the US also took advantage of Iran’s damaged military capabilities and limited ability to retaliate, thanks to Israel’s earlier attacks.

Destroying Iran’s nuclear program and toppling Iran’s regime will make the world a safer place.

Iran’s potential ability to use a nuclear bomb has historically given Iran leverage over the Middle East and allowed Iran to stand up a network of militant proxy groups in opposition to Israel, the US, and Gulf Arab States. Crippling Iran’s nuclear program and security infrastructure removes not only the threat of a nuclear bomb, but also Iran’s ability to influence and support militant proxy groups.
Stopping Iran from having a nuclear weapon prevents a nuclear chain reaction from occurring in the Middle East. For example, Saudi Arabia has said that if Iran were to develop a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia would do so as well.
The case for overthrowing Iran’s current regime is strong. Iran sponsors terrorism around the world, and censors, violently oppresses, and continuously commits human rights violations against its population. Removing the current regime would also improve regional dynamics and free other Arab countries from Iran’s control.

Give us your feedback! Please let us know how we can improve.

Your feedback

Music on the bottom

Big Thief is another favorite band of mine. Their newest song, “Incomprehensible,” has the perfect amount of weirdness that makes their music so special. - Dylan

Listen on Spotify, Apple Music, or Amazon Music.

Trump's response to the LA protests

Eric Thompson — Mon, 16 Jun 2025 04:08:42 GMT

California National Guard in front of LA protestors. Wikimedia Commons

Snippets

The suspect in a series of targeted shootings that killed Minnesota State Representative Melissa Hortman (D) and her husband, Mark, and wounded Minnesota State Senator John Hoffman (D) and his wife, Yvette, was taken into custody after a two-day manhunt.
Israel launched widespread airstrikes across Iran amid growing tension between the two countries over Tehran’s nuclear program, hitting key nuclear facilities and killing several military commanders, including the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard. Iran retaliated by launching 200+ missiles at Israel during an escalating exchange of strikes and cancelled planned nuclear talks with the US that were set to take place in Oman on Sunday. (See our previous coverage of the Iran nuclear talks.)
The House of Representatives passed a $9.4B rescissions package that includes cuts to federal funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting recommended by the Department of Government Efficiency.
Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr appointed 8 new members to an independent panel that advises the Center for Disease Control and Prevention on vaccines after dismissing its 17 sitting members earlier in the week.
At least 270 people were killed after an Air India passenger jet bound for London crashed into a medical college shortly after takeoff in Ahmedabad, India.

What’s happening

Last weekend, President Trump ordered the deployment of at least 2,000 National Guardsmen to Los Angeles in response to protests against ICE immigration arrests that took place in the city on Friday and Saturday. Trump specifically invoked Title 10, Section 12406 of the US Code (10 USC 12406) to federalize the National Guard in order to “temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law, and to protect Federal property.”

California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) vocally opposed Trump’s decision. It marks the first time that a president has deployed the National Guard – a reserve of civilian soldiers typically directed by state governors – against the opposition of a state’s governor since 1965.

10 USC 12406: The statute that Trump invoked states that the President may call the National Guard into action “Whenever the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation; there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”

What’s unfolded since: On Monday, California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Newsom sued President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in an attempt to prevent the federalization of the California National Guard. That same day, Trump ordered the deployment of another 2,000 guardsmen as well as 700 Marines as protests persisted primarily in downtown LA. On Tuesday, Bonta and Newsom requested a federal judge to place an immediate restraining order halting the use of National Guardsmen and Marines in the city, but the request was rejected.

Protests have continued in LA over the past week, with some accounts of violent engagement between protestors and law enforcement as well as reports of destruction of property and businesses being looted. Protests continued this weekend in coordination with the broader “No Kings” demonstrations taking place across the country.

Debate continues over whether Trump’s decision to deploy the National Guard and Marines to LA is a legal and effective countermeasure to the protests. This week, we bring you viewpoints from multiple sides. Let us know what you think.

Notable viewpoints

More opposed to Trump’s deployment of the National Guard and Marines:

The deployment of the National Guard and Marines has made it more difficult to restore peace.

The protests were mostly under control before Trump’s deployment announcement last Saturday night – the LAPD had issued a statement that the protests were peaceful earlier that day. The situation got considerably worse once the National Guard was on the ground in LA, and Trump’s suggestion that Marines were needed to subdue the protests further provoked protestors.
Neither local nor state authorities requested federal assistance in managing the protests, and bringing in the National Guard was an unnecessary escalation. Having troops in LA only raises the risk of violence because troops – in line with their practice of duty – will wind up using force against protestors if violence or the threat of violence – real or imagined – is present.
As stated by LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell himself, having the federal military present in LA could make it significantly more difficult for LA law enforcement to effectively do their job in safeguarding the city.

Trump deployed troops more to further his political ambitions than to restore order.

Trump is not trying to restore public safety, and has sought out this confrontation with LA – a liberal city with an immigrant-heavy population. Any genuine response to restore order would have included coordination between the federal and California state governments, but instead Trump federalized the National Guard despite Newsom’s opposition. Trump forcing the National Guard into LA is in line with his previously-stated desire to use military assets to support mass deportation programs, and Trump wants to insert federal forces into liberal jurisdictions to influence their politics.
Trump is trying to create a crisis in LA for his own political gain – prior to the LA protests, the Trump administration had expressed its desire to use the National Guard to assist in ICE activities. Trump, in a step towards authoritarianism, has manufactured chaos to create justification for taking control of the military. (Summarized from Rob Bonta, California Attorney General, and Gavin Newsom, California Governor, in their lawsuit against President Trump and Defense Secretary Hegseth.)

Trump does not have the legal authority to deploy the National Guard to LA.

The protests likely don’t fulfill the legal criteria laid out in 10 USC 12406, the statute that Trump invoked when deploying the National Guard – protests against ICE do not constitute a “rebellion” against the government, and there is no reason to believe LA law enforcement couldn’t contain the protests on their own. Trump is also violating the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of the military within US borders for law enforcement purposes without the consent of Congress or the Constitution.

More supportive of Trump’s deployment of the National Guard and Marines:

The deployment of the National Guard and Marines was necessary to protect federal agents and property from dangerous rioters.

In LA, cars have been set on fire, fireworks have been shot at police officers, and hundreds of arrests have been made – these are riots, not peaceful protests. LAPD Chief McDonnell said himself that his police force was “overwhelmed” by the rioters. A show of force from the National Guard was required to keep the peace and end the riots.
LA law enforcement has a history of being tolerant of violent protests and the destruction of property by rioters and looters. The use of National Guardsmen and Marines was necessary to protect federal buildings in the city.
ICE agents have been facing dramatically increased rates of assault, and ICE agents’ family members have also been doxed and targeted. Democratic politicians such as LA Mayor Karen Bass have contributed to the rise in assaults of ICE officers through their continued demonization of ICE, and the LAPD was not doing enough to protect ICE agents. (Summarized from a Department of Homeland Security Statement.)

Trump had a legal right to deploy the National Guard and Marines and a political mandate to support ICE deportation arrests.

It was legal for Trump to federalize the California Guard. 10 USC 12406 – particularly the section that states that the President can call upon the National Guard when “the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States” gives him broad legal authority. Moreover, Trump is not violating the Posse Comitatus Act, as Trump only ordered the National Guard to protect federal personnel and property, not assist ICE in specific law enforcement activities.

In deporting undocumented immigrants through these ICE arrests, Trump is enforcing US law and aligning himself with US voters who have gravitated towards a more restrictive stance on immigration. For example, a 2024 Gallup Poll found that 55% of US adults want less immigration, the highest figure since 2001, and 47% of adults want to deport all undocumented immigrants, a 10 point increase from 2019 levels.

Trump wants to minimize damage to the city of LA.

During nationwide protests in 2020, Trump did not mobilize the National Guard against the wishes of Democrat governors to suppress protests, and it led to widespread violence and destruction across US cities. Trump does not want to repeat that history now in LA. By acting decisively and mobilizing the National Guard, Trump has prevented attendance in the protests from growing to a point where it poses a serious risk of destruction.

Give us your feedback! Please let us know how we can improve.

Your feedback

Music on the bottom

Great new song from the hardcore band DRAIN. It may not be for everyone, but “Nights Like These” has got a fun message. (Explicit) - Dylan

Listen on Spotify, Apple Music, or Amazon Music.

Online casino gambling

Eric Thompson — Mon, 09 Jun 2025 04:18:56 GMT

Online poker game. Wikimedia Commons

Snippets

President Trump ordered the deployment of roughly 2,000 National Guardsmen to Los Angeles in response to ongoing protests against ICE immigration arrests that took place in the city during the past week. California Governor Gavin Newsom opposed the National Guard deployment, which Trump invoked under Title 10 authority.
Russia launched a large-scale missile and drone attack across Ukraine that killed at least 3 and injured more than 40 others. President Vladimir Putin said the strike was in response to Kyiv’s drone attack on Russian military bases last weekend that destroyed a strategic bomber fleet.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that members of majority groups – such as white or heterosexual people – do not have a higher legal standard than minorities to prevail in discrimination suits, after siding with a white heterosexual woman in Ohio who claimed she was the victim of reverse discrimination.
President Donald Trump signed a sweeping travel proclamation that will bar the entry of foreign nationals from 12 countries, citing national security concerns. The proclamation partially restricts entry for nationals from another 7 countries.
The suspect responsible for an attack on a march for Israeli hostages in Boulder, Colorado last weekend was charged with 118 state criminal charges, including 28 counts of attempted murder. Federal authorities say they are investigating the attack as an “act of terrorism.”

What’s happening

Last month, two separate bills were introduced in the Ohio Legislature that would legalize online casino gambling (e.g., blackjack, craps) in the state. SB 197 – the more comprehensive of the two bills – was introduced in the state Senate while HB 298 was introduced in the state House of Representatives. Either bill, if passed, would legalize online casino gambling – also known as iGaming – in Ohio by Mar 31, 2026.

What’s in the bills: While aiming to legalize iGaming from different angles, the bills share the same fundamentals. Under both, the Ohio Casino Control Commission would regulate online gambling, and only casinos or racinos in Ohio would be licensed as online gambling operators.

Both bills would allocate 99% of all online gambling tax revenue to Ohio's general revenue fund and 1% to a “problem gambling fund” that would pay for the cost of programs addressing problem gambling (e.g., gambling addiction) in the state. Only individuals aged 21+ years and physically present in Ohio would be permitted to participate in iGaming.

Key differences: SB 197 would legalize 3 different types of online gambling – iGaming, online video lottery terminals, and online betting on horse racing. An online gambling operator would have to pay an initial $50M fee for an online gambling license and renew it every 5 years for an additional $5M fee. All internet gambling receipts received by online gambling operators would be subject to a 36% tax.

HB 298, smaller in scope, would only legalize iGaming. It would carry a similar $50M fee to acquire an online gambling license but charge a $10M renewal fee every 5 years. The gambling receipts tax would be slightly lower than SB 197 at 28%.

Other states: If Ohio legalizes iGaming, it would become the eighth US state to do so, joining Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and West Virginia.

Approximately 30 states and Washington DC have legalized online sports betting, specifically, in some form. Most of them did so after the Supreme Court ruling in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2018), which struck down an effective ban on legalized sports gambling.

The Ohio Legislature has been hearing arguments from proponents and opponents of both bills. Their debate ties to a broader national discussion that has accompanied the growing trend of gambling legalization in states since 2018. This week, we bring you viewpoints from multiple sides. Let us know what you think.

Notable viewpoints

More supportive of legalized online casino gambling:

Legalized online casino gambling benefits state economies.

In states where it is legalized, iGaming is a significant tax revenue generator that has contributed billions of dollars to state programs in areas such as education, public health, and community development. In Ohio, legalized iGaming could generate over $600M in net-new annual tax revenue. (Summarized from Cesar Fernandez, Head of US State Government Relations at FanDuel, in his testimony supporting HB 298.)
Legalizing online casino gambling would boost revenue for existing retail casinos in Ohio, which would benefit state programs. Research shows that states with legalized iGaming have seen roughly 2% annual growth in brick-and-mortar gaming revenue. (Summarized from Brandt Iden, VP of Government Affairs for Fanatics Betting and Gaming, in his testimony supporting HB 298.)

Americans support legalized gambling and should have the right to spend their money how they please.

Tantamount to the freedom of speech and other civil liberties, Americans should have the freedom to spend their money as they wish, even on vices. Alcohol, for example, is widely enjoyed in the US and is responsible for more societal harm than gambling.
Gambling is a voluntary entertainment option similar to dining out at a restaurant, and Americans on average spend much less on gambling than other forms of entertainment or discretionary spending. An American Gaming Association poll found that 88% of Americans find gambling to be acceptable for themselves or others.

Legalizing iGaming would help regulators protect consumers.

Legalizing online casino gambling would empower lawmakers to regulate it and put consumer protections in place – including preventing underage gambling and creating responsible gaming tools (e.g., setting limits on deposits, betting amounts, and time betting) to safeguard against problem gambling. (Summarized from Scott Ward, lobbyist for Sports Betting Alliance, in his testimony supporting HB 298.)
Illegal and unregulated online casino gambling is pervasive. One estimate found there is $5B worth of illegal and unregulated online casino gambling in Ohio annually. Directing gamblers towards legalized iGaming would enable the government to weaken this illegal market while accessing taxable online casino gambling receipts. (Summarized from Scott Ward, lobbyist for Sports Betting Alliance, in his testimony supporting HB 298.)

More opposed to legalized online casino gambling:

Expanding legalized gambling would increase problem gambling and associated mental health issues.

Online casino gambling is designed to be highly addictive. iGaming – particularly on mobile devices – could be 10x more addictive than other gambling products. (Summarized from Brianne Doura–Schawohl, problem gambling advocate, in her testimony opposing SB 197 and HB 298.)
Online gambling companies are predatory and intentionally target gambling addicts as a feature of their business model – tracking customer data such as personal betting behavior and incentivizing gambling addicts to keep betting through VIP programs and special promotions. A 2024 WSJ analysis found that 70% of one online gambling company’s revenue came from just 0.5% of its gambling customers. (Summarized from Les Bernal, National Director of Stop Predatory Gambling, in his testimony opposing SB 197.)
Expanding access to addictive online gambling through legalized iGaming would exacerbate the mental health crisis already facing the country. Gambling addiction has the highest associated suicide rate of any known addiction.

Legalized online gambling costs states more in economic and social damage than it benefits them in tax revenue.

While legalizing iGaming in Ohio would create a net tax gain, it would be accompanied by a loss of nearly $1B in total annual economic output due to fewer people visiting brick-and-mortar casinos in the state, 3,000 jobs lost, and a potential 9-figure cost associated with treating and preventing problem gambling. (Summarized from Brian Wyman, Executive Vice President of The Innovation Group, in his testimony opposing SB 197.)
Gambling-related harm is a significant societal issue – research shows that for every individual struggling with gambling addiction, that person will negatively impact 6 other people. Examples of gambling-related harm include increased rates of divorce and domestic violence, and a greater reliance on social service programs. (Summarized from Brianne Doura–Schawohl, problem gambling advocate, in her testimony opposing SB 197.)
Legalized online gambling leads to higher levels of financial distress. A 2024 paper by UCLA researchers found that citizens in states with legalized online sports betting have higher levels of debt, loan delinquencies, and bankruptcies than those in states where sports betting access is restricted to in-person.

Give us your feedback! Please let us know how we can improve.

Your feedback

Music on the bottom

New music out from Ty Segall! This prolific rocker has become one of my favorites. Check out his song “Possession” from his latest album. - Dylan

Listen on Spotify, Apple Music, or Amazon Music.

The Supreme Court on religious charter schools

Eric Thompson — Mon, 02 Jun 2025 04:47:28 GMT

US Supreme Court Building. Ken Hammond / Wikimedia Commons

Quick message from Braver Angels

Standup comedy is having a moment. From TikTok clips to Netflix specials to late night talk shows, comedians are making their mark on pop culture. Some comedy taps into our common humanity and brings us together; a good live show will turn a theater of strangers into a family.

But comedy can also be divisive, highlighting our differences. Some jokes are viewed as insightful and revealing while others may seem like cheap shots. Pushing boundaries is a common comedic tactic that can startle us and elicit big laughs. Should comedy have limits? Are there things that are too serious to joke about?

Join Braver Angels Debate Chair Cynthia O'Brien on Tues June 10 at 8pm ET for a national debate on the topic: Comedy and Politics. Register here!

Snippets

Ukraine reportedly launched a drone strike that destroyed over 40 Russian warplanes in one of its largest assaults on Russian territory in the war to date. The attack was the latest among recent escalations of the conflict despite peace talks scheduled in Istanbul this week.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration can terminate the temporary legal status of more than 500,000 immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela granted humanitarian parole during the Biden administration.
A federal appeals court granted the Trump administration’s request to temporarily pause the Court of International Trade’s ruling that would have blocked most of the “Liberation Day” tariffs imposed by Trump earlier this year. The Court of International Trade ruled President Trump overstepped his authority in using emergency powers to impose the tariffs.
Sixteen states filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over its decision to cut research programs and funding for the National Science Foundation. More than $1.4B in research grants – mostly related to diversity, equity, and inclusion – were terminated this year.
The State Department has ordered US embassies to pause scheduling new interviews for student visa applicants and is considering adding social media vetting to its screening requirements.

What’s happening

Last month, the US Supreme Court voted 4-4 in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board / St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School vs. Drummond. The deadlock means that a June 2024 Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling that blocked a Catholic virtual school’s bid to become the first religious charter school in the US will stand. Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case.

How we got here: The school in question – St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School – was created in 2023 with the intent of functioning as a privately-operated, publicly-funded K-12 charter school providing a tuition-free “Catholic education” to interested Catholic and non-Catholic students. The Oklahoma Charter School Board accepted St. Isidore's application to enter Oklahoma's publicly-funded virtual charter school program, and the school planned to open for the 2024-2025 school year.

But after the board’s approval, Oklahoma’s Attorney General Gentner Drummond challenged St. Isidore’s charter school designation and the case went to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. In June 2024, the court ruled that “Under Oklahoma law, a charter school is a public school. As such, a charter school must be nonsectarian.”

The court further specified that a religious charter school would violate both the Oklahoma Constitution and the US Constitution’s First Amendment Establishment Clause prohibiting Congress from making a law “respecting an establishment of religion.” The court ordered the Charter School Board to revoke its contract with St. Isidore, and the school did not receive state funding nor open for the 2024–2025 school year. St. Isidore and Oklahoma’s Charter School Board both filed appeals with the US Supreme Court.

Implications: Longstanding Supreme Court practice dictates that in cases where justices divide equally on a case, the lower court ruling is affirmed, but no national precedent is established for future cases. Therefore, because the US Supreme Court split 4-4, the affirmed Oklahoma Supreme Court decision only applies in Oklahoma, and the question of religious charter schools’ legality is not yet resolved on a national level.

Debate over the ruling centers around the legal arguments of the case and the practical implications of permitting religious charter schools. This week, we bring you viewpoints from multiple sides. Let us know what you think.

Notable viewpoints

More supportive of the ruling:

Permitting a religious charter school would violate the Constitution and other statutes.

St. Isidore, if approved as a charter school, would technically become a government entity and state actor according to a number of legal criteria (e.g., receiving funding from the state; providing a free public education). As such, St. Isidore’s promotion of Catholic teachings and mandated Catholic instruction as a government entity would violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from promoting a specific religion. (Summarized from the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling.)
St. Isidore’s status as a charter school would violate a statute in the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act which requires a charter school to be nonsectarian in every aspect of its program and operations and restricts one from being affiliated with a religious institution. (Summarized from the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling.)
Charter school status for St. Isidore would violate the “no aid” provision of Oklahoma’s Constitution that prohibits “using public money for the benefit or support of any religious institution.” (Summarized from the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling.)
While US Supreme Court precedent in Trinity Lutheran vs. Comer (2017), Espinoza vs. Montana Department of Revenue (2020), and Carson vs. Makin (2022) has permitted existing religious institutions to receive state funds in certain circumstances (e.g., allowing school vouchers to be used for religious schools), St. Isidore’s intention to be directly state-funded goes far beyond such precedent.

Allowing religious charter schools would upend the public education system and infringe upon the civil rights of Americans.

Taxpayer-funded public charter schools must be open to all students, but a religious charter school by its nature would discriminate against students in admissions based on their religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other protected characteristic.
Taxpayers should not be forced to fund any school that is teaching religious ideologies or other beliefs that they find objectionable or offensive.
Allowing St. Isidore to become a religious charter school would effectively require a determination that charter schools are no longer public schools. This would upend charter school laws in 46+ states that provide families a choice in public education and potentially divert funding or shutter some charter schools for the almost 4M students that attend them.
Families already have the right to choose private religious education, and some states such as Oklahoma offer tax credits to parents who wish to send their children to religious schools. But parents should be able to allocate their tax dollars towards religious institutions as they see fit – not forced to subsidize them en masse through the public funding system.

More opposed to the ruling:

Permitting a religious charter school would not violate the Constitution or other statutes.

St. Isidore’s approval as a charter school would not violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause because allocating public funds to a privately-run and freely-chosen charter school (whereby funding is tied to enrollment) would not equate to the establishment of religion.
St. Isidore’s status as a charter school would not violate the Oklahoma Constitution’s “no aid” provision because the school is providing services that benefit the state in exchange for funding – the funding is not a gift or donation. Oklahoma frequently contracts with private organizations for services, and prior Oklahoma Supreme Court cases such as Oliver vs. Hofmeister (2016) and Burkhardt vs. City of Enid (1989) dictate that public-private contracts are not invalid when a religious organization may benefit from them. (Summarized from Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice Dana Kuehn, in her dissenting opinion.)
It is not illegal for the state to contract with sectarian educational institutions as long as secular institutions are also available for students. The state would not be favoring or establishing any religious organization by allowing funds to go to St. Isidore. Rather, by funding St. Isidore, Oklahoma would be providing more educational opportunities – in line with the mission of Oklahoma’s Charter Schools Act. (Summarized from Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice Dana Kuehn, in her dissenting opinion.)
St. Isidore is inclusive and abides by all applicable nondiscrimination charter school laws. For example, it does not require students or teachers to be Catholic nor require students to affirm Catholic beliefs (e.g., it allows exceptions for students who do not want to attend mass). (Summarized from representation for Oklahoma Charter School Board / St. Isidore during US Supreme Court oral arguments.)
US Supreme Court precedent in cases such as Trinity Lutheran vs. Comer (2017), Espinoza vs. Montana Department of Revenue (2020), and Carson vs. Makin (2022) has dictated that religious schools can receive public funding to operate. For instance, Makin ruled that students in Maine could use school vouchers for religious schools.

Allowing religious charter schools would benefit the public education system and improve access to diverse learning opportunities.

Religious charter schools help address the need for educational choice, particularly in underserved communities, by giving families more affordable options in deciding what type of education is best for their children’s needs. Having fewer and less diverse educational opportunities harms students and their families.
Charter schools, through laws such as the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act, should already be exempt from many of the rules that regulate traditional public schools. Blocking St. Isidore’s approval to operate as a charter school discriminates on the basis of religion and sends the message that charter schools can implement any ideology as long as it is not a religious one.
Oklahoma’s decision to rescind its contract with St. Isidore based purely on its status as a religious institution violates the religious rights of students under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. (Summarized from representation for Oklahoma Charter School Board / St. Isidore during US Supreme Court oral arguments.)

Give us your feedback! Please let us know how we can improve.

Your feedback

Music on the bottom

My favorite guitar solo of all time. Eric and I were lucky enough to see Wilco play this song front row at Newport Folk Festival back in 2017. Check out “Impossible Germany.”
– Dylan

Listen on Spotify, Apple Music, or Amazon Music.

Trump orders drug price reductions

Eric Thompson — Sun, 25 May 2025 04:59:45 GMT

Photo by Laurynas Me / Unsplash

Quick intro

Hi everyone, my name’s Dylan Hannes.

Eric and I go way back – I remember him sharing his desire to address polarization in the media nearly a decade ago – so I’m excited to join the team and support Framechange’s mission. I believe that in today’s information and political environment, there is a need for open-minded and informed conversations to foster understanding and reduce division. Framechange helps address that need.

As Framechange continues to grow, I’ll be stepping in from time to time to help write editions. Please let me know how I’m doing!

Thanks for reading, and enjoy this week’s topic.

Dylan

Snippets

The House of Representatives passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a broad tax and spending bill backed by President Trump that would extend tax breaks, boost funding for border security, and cut spending for some social programs like Medicaid. The legislation has advanced to the Senate, where it is expected to face revisions.
A federal judge blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to restrict Harvard University from enrolling international students. The administration had moved to terminate Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification in an escalation of its standoff with the university around campus policies. (See our previous coverage.)
Federal prosecutors are investigating the fatal shooting of two Israeli Embassy staff members outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, DC as a hate crime and an act of terrorism. The suspect was charged with first-degree murder.
The Supreme Court deadlocked over a Catholic virtual charter school’s bid to become the nation's first public religious charter school. The split means an Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling blocking the school’s attempt remains in place. (See our previous roundup coverage.)
Humanitarian aid entered Gaza for the first time since early March after Israel eased an 11-week blockade, enabling 90 truckloads of aid to pass.

What’s happening

Last week, President Trump signed an executive order to establish “most-favored-nation” (MFN) pricing on pharmaceutical drugs for Americans. MFN pricing aims to tether American drug prices to those paid in similar developed nations, which commonly see lower prices than those charged in the US by the same manufacturers. The order took effect immediately although its enforcement timeline is not yet clear.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) further specified this week that pharmaceutical manufacturers are expected to meet a US price target that matches the lowest paid by any OECD country with a GDP per capita of at least 60% that of the US.

Drug price disparities: When highlighting drug cost disparities globally, observers across the spectrum have pointed to a 2024 RAND study that found gross prices for all prescription drugs in the US were 278% of prices in other OECD countries. Brand-name pharmaceuticals, according to the study, are the biggest driver of the price disparity, with their US costs estimated at 422% of prices in OECD countries.

The order: The order specifically directs HHS to create rules imposing MFN pricing on manufacturers or “take other aggressive measures” to reduce drug costs if “significant progress” is not made by pharma companies in meeting communicated price targets.

It also instructs the Secretary of Commerce and US Trade Representative to ensure no foreign countries are purposefully undercutting US drug prices and requires HHS to set up a system enabling Americans to buy drugs directly from manufacturers.

Previous executive action: During his first term in 2020, Trump signed an executive order calling for a similar plan that would enable Medicare to pay MFN pricing for specific drugs covered under Medicare Part B and Part D. This led to the conception of the “MFN Model,” but the order was blocked by a federal judge before the plan could take effect.

More recently in April, Trump signed an order directing federal agencies to evaluate potential anti-competitive practices by drugmakers and explore ways for states to import lower-cost drugs from Canada.

The conversation around Trump’s latest MFN pricing order centers around its potential to reduce drug prices and the tradeoffs involved in mandated drug price reductions. This week, we bring you the viewpoints from multiple sides. Let us know what you think.

Notable viewpoints

More supportive of Trump’s order:

Government-led drug price reductions are popular and common globally.

Most Americans support government-led intervention on prescription drug price costs. A 2024 poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) found that 55% of adults are worried about their ability to afford their family’s prescription drug costs, and a 2023 KFF poll found that 73% of adults say “there is not enough government regulation when it comes to limiting the price of prescription drugs.”
Many other foreign governments already impose price controls on pharmaceutical purchases – commonly in the form of bulk buying – including France, Germany, and the UK. Trump’s order seeks to put the US on the same playing field as the rest of the world.

Lowering drug prices will improve patient outcomes.

High drug prices lead to worse patient outcomes. A 2023 KFF poll found that 31% of American adults did not take their medicine as prescribed due to cost and a 2020 study by West Health Policy Center estimated that 1.1M+ Medicare patients could die between 2020-2030 due to an inability to afford their prescriptions.
“Lowering drug prices…would allow people – especially those with chronic conditions and disabilities – to access the treatment they need.” (Nicole Rapfogel and Thomas Waldrop, Center for American Progress.)

Pharmaceutical innovation can be sustained without placing an unfair burden on Americans.

Lowering drug prices in the US will not reduce innovation in drug development because other levers can be pulled to sustain it, including policies that increase funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), improve the efficiency of clinical trials, and soften innovation-blocking patent laws.
American consumers are subsidizing pharmaceutical R&D for the rest of the world by paying over 3x what citizens in other OECD countries pay for branded prescription drugs. Trump’s executive order will shift the costs of innovation by effectively raising drug prices in other countries.
Other countries need to step up and “share the burden” of investment in breakthrough medicines by paying their fair share for prescription drugs. If other OECD countries lifted their price regulations and paid more for prescription drugs, the world would benefit from an uptick in new medicines introduced each year.

More opposed to Trump’s order:

The order will not meaningfully reduce drug prices in the US.

MFN pricing will do little to reduce drug prices in the US because drugmakers are more likely to increase their prices abroad or stop selling in foreign markets altogether to avoid the price comparison with the US, their most lucrative market. A 2022 economic analysis by UCLA and the Toulouse School of Economics concluded that if pharma companies were forced to charge Canadian drug prices, they would increase average Canadian drug prices by 216% while only dropping US prices by 7.5%.
Trump’s order does not address the real driver of high prescription drug costs that is the unique US ecosystem of insurers, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), and hospitals. Those middlemen collectively take “50% of every dollar” spent on prescription drugs and implement tactics that drive up prices in other ways. The total amount captured by these middlemen for a given drug can exceed that drug’s total price in Europe.

The order will diminish patient quality of care by limiting innovation and drug availability.

MFN pricing pegs drug prices to the willingness-to-pay of foreign governments, which undervalue medical innovation and its importance relative to the US. Lower prices would ultimately lead to lower pharma profits, less investment in groundbreaking medicines, and “shorter, less healthy lives for Americans.”
Government price setting policies lead to reduced investment in biopharmaceutical R&D. For instance, biopharma R&D investment in Europe went from being 24% higher than the US in 1986 prior to Europe’s adoption of price controls to now over 40% lower than the US.
Trump’s order effectively places price controls on pharmaceuticals in the US, a policy tactic that has historically created shortages when applied to other sectors such as housing and food.

The order is an overreach of executive authority.

Trump and federal agencies such as HHS do not have statutory authority to enforce price controls on private drug purchases. Any such power would have to be granted by congressional legislation.
The executive order does not contain any specific enforcement mechanisms to effect change. Pharma companies would likely want to see price increases in foreign markets before agreeing to any US price reductions and it is unlikely other countries will voluntarily increase their prices.

Give us your feedback! Please let us know how we can improve.

Your feedback

Music on the bottom

I am an evangelist for Billy Strings, so any music conversation with me should start there. Check out this live version of “Heartbeat of America” to get acquainted.

Listen on Spotify, Apple Music, or Amazon Music.

School choice expands

Eric Thompson — Sat, 17 May 2025 02:44:40 GMT

Photo by Kenny Eliason / Unsplash

Awesome podcast

At Framechange, we’re about giving you tools to think, not telling you what to think. So when I find a resource that respects your intelligence and curiosity, I want to pass it along.

Lately, I’ve been listening to a podcast called Top of Mind with Julie Rose, and I think many of you will appreciate it as much as I have.

Julie Rose is a journalist with over two decades of experience, and she gets it: the news cycle can feel like an endless barrage of noise, outrage, and quick takes. Top of Mind is her answer to that. It’s not a news podcast. You won’t hear a rundown of the day’s events. Instead, each episode dives deep into a single topic – things like "Should marijuana be legalized?" or "How can we get money out of politics?" – and tackles it from multiple angles.

Top of Mind is right in line with what we do here at Framechange and worth a listen. You’ll come away feeling more empathetic, better informed, and a little more hopeful, not exhausted. You can find Top of Mind with Julie Rose on YouTube, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Snippets

President Donald Trump finished a 4-day trip to the Middle East that included stops in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The trip yielded a series of deals, including a commitment from Saudi Arabia to invest $600 billion in the US, a partnership with the UAE to build a large AI data complex in Abu Dhabi, and a $96 billion agreement from Qatar to purchase 210 Boeing planes.
Russian and Ukrainian officials met in Istanbul to hold their first peace talks since the beginning of the war in 2022. The talks ended in less than two hours without a significant breakthrough, but the countries agreed to swap 1,000 prisoners each. Neither Russian President Vladimir Putin nor Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy attended the meetings.
A group of 59 Afrikaners – a white ethnic minority group in South Africa – arrived in the US and were given refugee status for alleged discrimination. The South African government has refuted allegations of persecution.
The Supreme Court remains undecided after hearing arguments on whether to lift a series of nationwide court orders blocking President Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship.
President Trump said he would accept a $400 million Boeing 747-8 jet as a gift from the Qatari royal family that will be retrofitted to be used as Air Force One. Trump reportedly indicated the jet will be transferred to his presidential library foundation at the conclusion of his term.

What’s happening

Earlier this month, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed into law Senate Bill 2, which creates a new “school choice” program that will subsidize K-12 education costs for Texas families wishing to send their children to private schools and other institutions instead of their district’s public school. The program will start in 2026 and provide up to $1B in funding over its first two years.

What is school choice: School choice broadly refers to publicly-funded programs that support families in paying for K-12 education alternatives to public school. Alternatives may include private schools, charter schools, magnet schools, or homeschooling. Funding is usually state- or local-government sponsored and provided in the form of school vouchers, education savings accounts (ESAs), or tax credit scholarships. Vouchers are typically limited to specific uses such as tuition while ESAs tend to be less restrictive in what the funds can be spent on (e.g., textbooks, supplies), although “school voucher” is sometimes used to describe both.

The Texas program: Texas will specifically provide ESAs of $10,300-$10,900 per child per year for qualifying families, which can be used for private school tuition or other learning support and materials. (The ESA range equates to roughly 85% of the funding provided to public schools per child.)

Any child that decides not to attend public school is eligible, but Texas will prioritize low-income and special needs students in the event demand exceeds the allocated budget. The ESA cap for homeschooled students is $2,000 while students with disabilities are eligible for up to $30,000 in additional support.

Existing state programs: Roughly 30 states and Washington DC have implemented some form of school choice program. Some of the largest and most notable include Florida (which counts 500,000+ students attending private school through state support), Arizona, and Ohio. Roughly 15 states have implemented new school choice programs since the COVID-19 pandemic.

Federal consideration: House Republicans introduced a bill this month that – if passed – would establish a nationwide school choice program that budgets up to $5B per year for scholarships provided to families via tax credits. Similar legislation was introduced in the Senate earlier this year on the same day President Trump issued an executive order that directs the Department of Education to provide states guidance on school choice programs.

National legislation on school choice is seen by many observers as unlikely to pass in the short-term due to how contentious it is as an issue. This week, we take a look at viewpoints from multiple sides. Let us know what you think.

Notable viewpoints

More supportive of school choice programs:

School vouchers provide freedom of choice and help students in underperforming school districts.

School vouchers give parents greater agency in the education of their children, enabling their tax dollars to more directly flow to schools that meet their children’s individual needs.
School choice programs provide students in underperforming schools the opportunity to gain a better education at higher-performing schools.
Most Americans support school choice initiatives. A 2025 poll by EdChoice / Morning Consult found that 60%-65% of adults support school vouchers in some form and roughly 76% of school parents support education savings accounts (ESAs), specifically.

School choice programs improve student outcomes and school performance.

School vouchers improve learning outcomes for students that would have otherwise been limited to underperforming public schools. For instance, a 2025 Urban Institute study found that 64% of participants in Ohio’s EdChoice voucher program during the years 2007-2008 and 2013-2014 went on to attend college compared to 48% of students of similar demographics that stayed in their public schools. The study also found the voucher participants were more likely to graduate college.
School choice programs actually improve performance at underperforming public schools, rather than “leaving behind” students at those schools as some opponents argue they will. A 2019 meta analysis by University of Texas, Austin and other researchers found that increased competition among schools – driven by school choice initiatives – resulted in a small positive effect on student achievement.
School choice programs can benefit minority and historically underprivileged students. In Florida’s FTC program, for instance, 55% of students are black or Hispanic while 39% of students come from single-family households.

School choice programs are a more efficient use of taxpayer money.

School choice programs save taxpayer money by directing it more efficiently toward educational services demanded by individuals. For instance, a 2024 EdChoice analysis of school choice programs across 26 states found the programs collectively generated $19.4B–$45.6B in savings for taxpayers.
“Should enrollment drop, public schools wouldn’t need to fear that they would suddenly lose their funding: States often have protections that shield districts from immediate financial losses due to declining enrollment. They would be given time to adjust their budgets, meaning that the financial effect of school choice would be gradual and manageable.” (Martin F. Lueken, Director of EdChoice.)

More opposed to school choice programs:

School choice programs hurt public schools.

School choice programs drain resources from public schools that are in need of more funding to provide a better education to students, not less funding.
School vouchers shift money away from public schools, exacerbating resource constraints for underperforming schools that serve a disproportionate level of low-income or underprivileged students. State funding for a public school is commonly tied to enrollment; therefore fewer students means less funding. An analysis by Every Texan, for example, estimated that the Texas school choice program would cost Texas public schools a collective $2.3B statewide per year.
“‘School choice’ is a Trojan Horse for privatization, a web of false promises and negative consequences for communities of color, low-income families and public schools.” (Jasmine Bolton and April Callen, US News.)

School choice disproportionately helps higher-income students and leaves disadvantaged students behind.

Because school vouchers usually aren’t enough to cover full private school tuition (typical private school tuitions in Texas, for example, range between $14,000-$25,000 while Texas school vouchers will amount to roughly $10,500 per student), lower income students do not gain enough financial support to switch schools. Instead, they are left behind in underperforming and underfunded institutions.
Students from wealthier families that are already enrolled in private schools benefit more from school vouchers than lower-income students. For instance, data shows that in 2023, among the 120,000 new students participating in Florida’s school voucher program after it broadened its eligibility requirements, only 13% were students switching from public schools while 69% were already enrolled in private schools and the rest were entering private kindergarten. In Ohio, after the state broadened its program to permit higher-income students, the percentage of participating students that were already enrolled in private schools increased from 7% in 2019 to roughly 55% in 2023.
School vouchers function as a subsidy for the wealthy, which has encouraged some private schools to increase their tuition costs in order to capitalize on the higher purchasing power of the families attending them.

School choice does not improve student outcomes.

Historically, voucher programs have not proven to increase academic performance of participating students, and in some cases have actually been shown to lower performance. For example, a 2018 study found that standardized test scores in Louisiana declined after the introduction of school choice programs in the state, an effect concluded to be driven partly by the influx of new, lower quality private schools incentivized by the vouchers. A separate 2018 study found a similar pattern in Indiana.
School vouchers can fail students with special needs. Private schools aren’t required by law to provide minimum accessibility features at their schools, rendering a school voucher useless for some students with specific unmet needs – leaving them behind in a public school that may subsequently receive less funding to support those needs.

Give us your feedback! Please let us know how we can improve.

Your feedback

Music on the bottom

Here’s a very chill version of a very high energy rock song from the 90s. I simply won’t apologize for two 90s tunes in the span of three weeks. Maybe it’s that time of year.

Listen on Spotify, Apple Music, or Amazon Music.

Roundup edition

Eric Thompson — Mon, 12 May 2025 23:02:32 GMT

Quick announcement

I’ll be the featured speaker in a virtual fireside chat hosted by Builders this Wednesday (5/14) at 6pm ET. During the event, I’ll be sharing my personal experience and learnings from building Framechange, describing the mindset we adopt in writing Framechange editions, and offering practical tips for approaching disagreement with curiosity. You can register here if you’re interested in attending.

I'm also excited to welcome Dylan Hannes to the Framechange team starting next week! Dylan brings extensive research experience and previously served as Head of Content at 6Pages, a market intelligence platform focused on business and tech trends, which he and I co-founded. He's deeply aligned with the Framechange mission and will be supporting the development of our weekly editions.

Since we didn’t publish an edition last week, I wanted to start this week with a brief roundup of viewpoints on recent topics that we haven’t had the chance to cover in depth. Let us know what you think of this format in the 1-question poll at the bottom.

Thanks as always for your readership.

Eric

Viewpoints roundup

Note: The viewpoints summarized below are meant to provide a small sample of the current discourse around each topic. They aren’t comprehensive and don’t fully capture the nuances of any one perspective.

1. The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, a case focused on a Catholic virtual charter school’s bid to become the first religious charter school in the US.

Opposed to the school’s bid: The First Amendment requires the separation of church and state, and allowing the Catholic school to become a charter school would subsidize the school with tax dollars from non-Catholic Oklahomans.
Supportive of the school’s bid: Charter schools are different from conventional public schools in that they – while subsidized by government funding – are privately operated and are intended to give families greater choice in the education their children receive. The Court should rule in favor of the Catholic school.

2. India launched a military operation in Pakistan in response to a mass shooting in Indian-administered Kashmir that India blamed on Pakistan-based militants. Both countries agreed to a US-brokered ceasefire after the retaliatory operation.

Supportive of India’s military strike: India was justified in carrying out retaliatory strikes on Pakistani targets as a method of deterrence against extremist threats operating from inside the country.
Opposed to India’s military strike: India’s offensive was based on limited evidence that Pakistan is responsible for the Kashmir attacks, but Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities will likely deter significant Indian aggression.

3. President Trump signed an executive order aimed at cutting off federal funding for NPR and PBS. Both news organizations said they would challenge the order.

Supportive of the order: NPR and PBS have the means to continue operating without the portion of funding they receive from the federal government and, with both outlets recognized as left-leaning, should not receive taxpayer money to conduct biased reporting.
Opposed to the order: Funding cuts to PBS would threaten the sustainability of local news critical to many communities across the country and limit the availability of impactful children’s programming.

4. Washington State passed a law requiring clergy to report any suspected child abuse or neglect, with no exceptions for information shared in Catholic confession. The Department of Justice said it was reviewing the law, calling it “anti-Catholic.”

Supportive of the law: The harm of abuse to children outweighs the importance of keeping confessions confidential – priests, like teachers or doctors, should be required to report any suspicions of child abuse.
Opposed to the law: Requiring clergy to report child abuse admitted during confession would break the sacred seal of confession and a core tenet of the Catholic faith, a violation of the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom.

5. The US Supreme Court ruled to temporarily allow the Trump administration’s ban on transgender people serving in the military while challenges continue in lower courts. President Trump had issued the ban through executive order in January.

Opposed to the ruling: The Trump administration’s transgender military ban violates the Constitution's equal protection rights for transgender military members and should be blocked.
Supportive of the ruling: Transgender people should not serve in the military because the treatments and therapies required to undergo gender transition affect combat readiness and unit cohesion.

Music on the bottom

Check out this groove-forward acoustic track by Sean Hayes, “Soul Shaker.” I love the way it carries with minimal percussive instrumentation.

Listen on Spotify, Apple Music, or Amazon Music.

Declining birth rates in the US

Eric Thompson — Sat, 03 May 2025 23:48:38 GMT

Photo by Luma Pimentel / Unsplash

Quick announcement

Thanks to those who answered last week’s poll on the placement of the Snippets. A majority of you prefer them on the top, so we’re going forward with that format! If you have have any additional feedback for us, please shoot us a quick note as always.

Additionally, we’re taking a week off next week from publishing and will be back in action thereafter.

Enjoy and have a great week ahead.

Eric

Snippets

President Trump removed Mike Waltz as national security adviser and nominated him as ambassador to the United Nations, naming Secretary of State Marco Rubio as interim national security adviser. The move comes roughly one month after Waltz accidentally added a journalist to a private Signal chat in which officials were discussing sensitive information about a military operation in Yemen.
The US and Ukraine agreed to a mineral rights deal that will give the US access to Ukraine’s rare earth minerals. The deal includes the setup of a joint fund to which the US will contribute in the form of aid or military assistance and to which Ukraine will contribute 50% of royalties from future mineral, oil, and gas licenses.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, a case focused on a Catholic virtual charter school’s bid to become the first religious charter school in the US. The Oklahoma Supreme Court originally ruled against the state charter school board’s decision to allow it, citing state laws requiring public schools to be non-religious, but the charter school board ultimately appealed to the US Supreme Court.
The US economy contracted during the first quarter of 2025, the first contraction since the first quarter of 2022. GDP fell by 0.3%, with the Commerce Department attributing the decrease partly to a surge in imports – which subtract from the calculation of total GDP – that occurred in anticipation of Trump’s tariffs taking effect.
Canada’s Liberal Party won a plurality of seats in the country’s House of Commons elections, with the Conservative Party placing second. The victory marks a significant comeback for the Liberal Party, led by Prime Minister Mark Carney, whose party had been trailing the Conservative Party in polling at the beginning of the year.

What’s happening

Over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has reportedly been hearing outside proposals on ways to increase the birth rate in the US. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a report last week concluding the birth rate (i.e., the expected number of children a woman will have in her lifetime) in 2024 was roughly 1.63 births per woman, close to the all-time low of 1.62 in 2023 and below the estimated population replacement rate of 2.10. Birth rates have steadily declined since 2007.

The significance of birth rate: While there are a variety of reasons people may support pronatalist policies, economic growth is a common concern cited by economists. Lower birth rates may cause a country’s workforce to dwindle as it ages, with fewer young people to fill jobs, which could threaten economic stability and limit support for the elderly. A common viewpoint opposed to pronatalist policies emphasizes independence and the value of pursuing a life outside of traditional familial expectations or gender roles. Despite declining birth rates over the past 18 years, the US population has continued to grow in part through immigration.

The proposals: The range of proposals that have reportedly been submitted to the Trump administration include a $5,000 “baby bonus” to women for every delivery, reserving 30% of Fulbright Scholarships for married couples or parents, a “National Medal of Motherhood” that would be awarded to any woman with at least six children, and higher spending on conception education. President Trump has called the $5,000 “baby bonus” a “good idea.”

Existing policy: There is currently a $2,000 child tax credit for parents with incomes below $200,000 filing individually or for parents with combined incomes below $400,000 filing jointly. Without additional congressional action, the tax credit will fall back down to $1,000 at the end of 2025, the level from which President Trump raised the tax credit during his first term.

This week, we take a brief look at some of the viewpoints on ways to increase the birth rate. We frame the perspectives primarily in a way that assumes higher birth rates are the goal, leaving the debate over whether they should be for a separate examination. Let us know what you think.

Notable viewpoints

Increasing birth rates would require more significant economic policies.

More sweeping policies like federally mandated paid parental leave to help alleviate the cost of child care and the funding of solutions that make pregnancy and birth safer would be more effective in encouraging childbirth than a $5,000 “baby bonus.”
Research suggests that economic support for families does yield more births, but the economic support must be significantly larger than a one-time $5,000 “baby bonus.” For instance, a 2020 analysis published by the Institute for Family Studies estimated that to increase birth rates by 21% (the approximate percentage required to get back up to replacement rate) would require providing mothers in the US a child benefit equal to an additional $2,800-$23,000 per year (beyond existing tax credits) for the first 18 years of their child’s life, with the amount varying according to a mother’s financial situation.

Other policy solutions that indirectly affect birth rates would have a meaningful impact.

Pro-growth economic policies that give Americans a more positive outlook on the future – rather than, for instance, sweeping tariffs, which have created economic uncertainty – would likely help improve birth rates. A 2025 Harvard Youth Poll of Americans aged 18-29 found that only 15% believe the country is “heading in the right direction.”
Better regulations that limit certain air and water pollutants would help improve birth rates from a biological fertility perspective. For instance, studies have found links between polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and infertility in males and females.
“What young men and women really need is affordable housing, affordable higher education (including trade schools), and a strong economy that can deliver good-paying jobs. Making it harder for young men to get lost in online pornography and gambling would help, too.” (Conn Carroll, Washington Examiner.)

Pronatalist policies should focus primarily on encouraging marriage.

Marriage rates have fallen by roughly 60% since the 1970s, yet marriage is the most viable path to having children. Policy efforts should focus more on promoting and supporting marriage, such as a one-time tax credit for newlyweds.
The average ages for men and women in the US getting married are now 30 and 28, respectively, while in the 1990s they were 26 and 24, respectively. Based on the current percentage of women that have at least three children when married by age 30 compared to those married after 30, reducing the average marriage age closer to 1990s levels would likely lead to a high enough increase in births to effectively return birth rates to replacement levels.
“The problem is that married women make up a much smaller percentage of the population than they used to. As recently as 2007, when women were having enough babies to sustain our population, 55% of women between the ages of 20 and 44 were married. Today, just 45% are, and the fall has been steepest for women under 30.” (Washington Examiner Editorial Board.)

Cultural shifts would be necessary to change current birth rate trends.

Deeper, underlying cultural drivers are behind declining birth rates that economic policies, alone, cannot significantly reverse. Americans are prioritizing their social lives, freedom to travel, and career pursuits over the commitment to having a family.
“Government interventions do not work because they do not compensate for the opportunity cost of having children. Modern life frames parenthood in terms of what you give up rather than what you gain…you see your friends less, eat out less, travel less, go to the gym less, are less likely to take up a promotion if it means longer hours.” (Kristina Murkett, The Spectator.)
Government-led policies to reduce the economic burden of children will have minimal impact on birth rates. In most Western countries, birth rates have been declining since 2010 and the US, which has long had less favorable family support policies than countries like Sweden and Norway, still has higher birth rates than Sweden or Norway.
Current educational programs in the US teach more about avoiding pregnancy than about healthy ways to get pregnant. It will take a shift in educational policy and cultural emphases on the beauty and desirability of having a family to improve birth rates.
The pronatalist movement ignores the fact that 64% of women under 50 don’t want children and should be free from pressure against prioritizing their careers, personal ambitions, and living as childless adults.

Give us your feedback! Please let us know how we can improve.

Your feedback

Music on the bottom

For a throwback to 90s rock, check out this deep cut by Everclear called “So Much for The Afterglow.” I hear it as The Beach Boys meets Nirvana. Enjoy.

Listen on Spotify, Apple Music, or Amazon Music.

The Iran nuclear talks

Eric Thompson — Sat, 26 Apr 2025 23:19:34 GMT

Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei / Wikimedia Commons

Quick announcement

Thanks to those who tapped an answer to our 1-question poll last week on the format of the last edition. A significant number of you expressed an interest in the shorter format, so we’ll be incorporating more of those going forward.

If you have another quick moment this week, please answer our 1-question poll at the bottom on the placement of the Snippets section, which we’re testing out at the top. Your feedback is so valuable in helping us improve!

Eric

Snippets

FBI agents arrested a Milwaukee judge on obstruction charges for allegedly assisting an undocumented defendant avoid arrest.
Russia launched its deadliest attack on Ukraine’s capital of Kyiv since July, killing at least 12 and injuring 90. The attack came amid weeks of peace negotiations organized by the US that have not yet driven an agreement.
Pope Francis, the first Latin American pope, died at age 88 after suffering a stroke. The Argentine pontiff was known for his inclusive style – including a more tolerant stance on same-sex marriage – during his 12-year papacy, drawing support from liberal Catholics and criticism from traditionalists.
Three federal judges have ruled against a Department of Education policy that would withhold federal funding to all public schools that engage in diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. The policy was first laid out in a letter sent to schools in February.
After a deadly militant attack killed 26 tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir, India closed its main border crossing with Pakistan, ended visa services for all Pakistani nationals, and suspended its participation in a 6 decade-long water sharing treaty with Islamabad. Pakistan denied involvement and retaliated with a set of similar measures.

What’s happening

The US and Iran continued negotiations today in Oman around potential limits to Iran’s nuclear program. It marked the third round of “indirect talks,” with US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi leading their respective delegations. Both sides described the discussions as constructive and signaled readiness to meet again on May 3.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicated earlier this week that the US was willing to permit a civilian nuclear power program under a requirement that Iran would import all enriched uranium and not retain any domestic enrichment capacity.

Why now: The talks come as the current Iran nuclear deal – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – is set to expire on Oct 18, which would technically free Iran from many of its current nuclear limits. JCPOA was initially agreed upon in 2015 between Iran and six world powers – the US, UK, France, Russia, China, and Germany.

The pact required Iran to limit the volume of enriched uranium and plutonium it produced or held, established a uranium enrichment cap of 3.67% purity (well below the roughly 90% required to build a weapon), put restrictions on the enrichment infrastructure Iran could operate, and required Iran to submit to compliance inspections from the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In return, the US and other signatories agreed to lift certain sanctions, enabling Iran to resume oil exports and unfreezing roughly $100B in frozen assets.

Trump’s JCPOA withdrawal: President Trump withdrew the US from JCPOA in 2018 during his first term – arguing it was too permissive – and initiated tighter economic sanctions on Iran. Since then, while European signatories have attempted to keep core aspects of the deal intact and the Biden administration tried to restore US involvement while loosening some sanctions, the strength of the JCPOA has waned. Iran was assessed to have breached its restrictions in 2019.

If a new deal is not reached, France, the UK, and Germany have indicated they would initiate “snapback sanctions” on Iran that have been paused throughout the deal. Trump also issued a memorandum calling for the reimposition of “maximum pressure sanctions” on Iran shortly after retaking office in February, in part setting the stage for the current negotiations.

Iran’s current capabilities: The JCPOA is a tighter and more specific set of restrictions on Iran’s nuclear capacity than the broader Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which Iran has been party to since 1970 and commits it to not possessing a nuclear weapon. While Iran is widely assessed to not have a nuclear bomb, the IAEA has reported that Iran has increased uranium enrichment levels to up to 60% (well above the JCPOA’s 3.67% limit).

Much of the debate around the negotiations focuses on whether the US should push for a more targeted deal similar to the JCPOA or demand a full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear capabilities among other potential restrictions such as those against Iran’s possession of ballistic missiles or its continued support for proxy military groups. This week, we bring you the viewpoints from multiple sides. Let us know what you think.

Notable viewpoints

Supportive of pushing for a more targeted deal:

Complete nuclear dismantlement is unrealistic.

Iran is highly unlikely to accept full nuclear dismantlement, which it would view as removing its international legitimacy and a step toward the cautionary tale that is former Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi’s agreement to give up nuclear capabilities in 2003. Eight years after Gaddafi did so, his regime was toppled by NATO-supported forces likely emboldened by Gaddafi’s lack of a nuclear deterrent.
Iran is likely willing to take a targeted deal at least as restrictive as the original JCPOA, which would be a win for Trump and help head off Iran’s most serious threats. For instance, downgrading Iran’s uranium enrichment to much lower thresholds (i.e., 3.67%) than its current levels (i.e., up to 60%) could effectively expand its lead time for creating a bomb to roughly a year, which would give the US and allies plenty of time to respond politically, economically, or militarily if Iran were to mobilize toward creating one.
“First, while Trump really wants a deal, most of the decisionmakers in the administration have traditionally been much more hawkish on Iran including Marco Rubio, Mike Waltz, Pete Hegseth, and many of the political appointees who work for them. They and Netanyahu may convince Trump to pursue unrealistic terms such as the complete dismantlement of the nuclear program, which could lead to the collapse in negotiations.” (Ilan Goldenberg, Dialogue and Dissonance.)

A hardline stance under the threat of military action would be too risky.

Striking Iran’s military facilities – some of which are located deep underground – may not successfully eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities and risks rallying nationalist opposition to the West among an Iranian population that has actually demonstrated a growing dissatisfaction with the current Iranian regime, giving it an unearned opportunity to strengthen domestic support.
With full dismantlement unlikely to be agreed to by Iran, military intervention by the US as a fail-safe response would be highly risky. It would likely face significant barriers to success, sparking a long protracted battle and disrupting global oil shipments from the Persian Gulf in a way that could have global economic implications. The US has been bombing Houthis in Yemen for a decade with mixed results, for instance, and an operation in Iran would be much more complicated.

Supportive of pushing for complete dismantlement:

Complete nuclear dismantlement is the only way to limit the Iran threat.

A deal that permits any level of nuclear fuel enrichment or the continued stockpiling of ballistic missiles would be a win for Iran, awarding it an undue level of acceptance on the world stage and emboldening the regime to continue developing nuclear weapon capabilities.
Negotiating anything less than complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear enrichment sites and infrastructure, destruction of its weaponization facilities, and acceptance of intrusive inspections by IAEA to ensure compliance will play into Tehran’s hand and threaten both stability in the Middle East and US national security. Since Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei will almost assuredly not agree to such restrictions, military intervention to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities is the most viable path forward.
“American isolationists on the right, and their allies in Obama-aligned think tanks in Washington, suggest there are only two options – ‘war or a [targeted] deal.’ This weakens our position and wanders blindly into the false dichotomy the Iranians want us to believe. …It is a false choice propagated by those who would prefer to coddle the regime in Tehran and cut a deal that will ensure that Iran obtains a full-on nuclear weapons program over time. Ironically, this outcome makes war more, not less, likely.” (Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, The Free Press.)

Iran is vulnerable enough to deal with decisively.

The Khamenei-led Iranian regime is at its weakest point in years – driven in part by the decimation of its proxies Hamas and Hezbollah by Israel since the Oct 7 attacks – making this an optimal time to eliminate Iran’s nuclear and other destabilizing capabilities. Under the threat of a military strike for noncompliance, the US should demand complete dismantlement of all uranium enrichment sites and related infrastructure, that Iran cease its funding of proxy forces, and that Iran stop threatening Israel and Arab neighbors.
With the combination of a struggling economy – Iran’s rial is at an all-time low relative to the US dollar – and its significantly weakened proxy network, Iran is more isolated and vulnerable than at any point in recent history, making this the ideal time to approach it decisively and put an end to its nuclear program.

Other viewpoints:

With or without economic sanctions, Iran would likely still be able to fund its proxy network if it wants to. For instance, Iran spent an estimated $25B on its military over the past year but provides Hezbollah an estimated $700M and Palestinian groups including Hamas $100M annually, small fractions of its budget.
The West would be better off neither engaging in direct negotiations nor militarily, but rather continuing what it’s doing – prolonging some sanctions, combatting proxy forces in the Middle East, and demonstrating support for internal opposition to the regime, a combination that will likely precipitate the regime’s internal collapse. Negotiations would give the Iranian regime economic relief and greater legitimacy on the world stage while military strikes could rally support domestically and drive Iran to accelerate nuclear weaponization.

1-question poll!

Music on the bottom

Check out this upbeat track, “Bluephoria,” by new-age southern rock band, Larkin Poe. They’re a sister-sister duo with a heck of a backing band.

Listen on Spotify, Apple Music, or Amazon Music.

Harvard and the Trump administration

Eric Thompson — Sat, 19 Apr 2025 01:32:25 GMT

Harvard University | Somesh Kesarla Suresh / Unsplash

Quick announcement

This week’s edition features a shortened format that I’m interested to test out. You’ll notice fewer arguments on each side and a bit less detail overall.

It’s something I’ve been wanting to explore for a while to gauge your interest in shorter editions. It also offers a welcome chance to recharge after dedicating some extra time recently to expanding our reach. With a small team (primarily myself and Krysia), striking the right balance can be helpful to keep everything churning.

On that note, we’ve been engaging in some exciting partnership conversations that I think will really amplify our impact. For instance, we're now an official movement partner of Builders (formerly Starts With Us) and are collaborating on several initiatives with Braver Angels.

I’ll also be the featured speaker in an upcoming Builders event to talk about the Framechange approach and strategies for engaging different perspectives neutrally and curiously. More to come on that soon!

If you have a quick moment, please help us out this week by answering the 1-question poll at the bottom of this edition. Your input truly helps guide our direction.

Thanks as always for your continued readership and support – I’m excited about what's ahead!

Eric

What’s happening

This week, Harvard University rejected demands from the Trump administration that it make a series of policy changes in exchange for continued funding from the federal government. In a letter to the Harvard community, Harvard President Alan Garber said Harvard “will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.” The Trump administration had targeted Harvard in part for what it calls “programs with egregious records of antisemitism or other bias.”

Trump’s response: The Trump administration responded to Harvard’s refusal by freezing $2.2B in federal funding and a $60M federal contract to the university. It also threatened to remove Harvard’s tax-exempt status – which would require Harvard to pay federal taxes on endowment income and donations – and bar Harvard from enrolling international students, who currently make up roughly 27% of total undergraduate and graduate enrollment. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is reportedly assessing the potential tax-exempt status removal with a decision expected soon.

The original demands: Trump’s newly established cross-agency Joint Anti-Semitism Task Force originally sent a letter to Harvard last week with a list of reforms Harvard must make in order to retain its federal funding. Notable requirements include overhauling Harvard’s governance structure to empower those more committed to its “scholarly mission” than activism, conducting regular audits of the ideologies of its staff and students to ensure “viewpoint diversity,” ceasing all DEI-related programs and ensuring strictly “merit-based” hiring and admissions processes, and tightening its screening of international student applicants with regular reporting to the Department of Homeland Security.

Harvard is the first school to directly reject the Trump administration’s demands amid the government’s broader crackdown on elite universities – including Columbia, Princeton, Brown, Northwestern, and Cornell – that it says need to do more to combat antisemitism and other bias on campus. After Harvard’s refusal, Princeton, MIT, and several other institutions sued the Department of Energy in response to its blocking of federal research grants to schools.

The standoff between Harvard and the Trump administration has surfaced debate over the merits of conditional federal funding for private universities and Harvard’s on-campus policies. This week, we bring you the viewpoints from multiple sides. Let us know what you think.

Notable viewpoints

More supportive of Harvard’s position:

Harvard’s rejection is necessary to combat the Trump administration’s growing pursuit of institutional control.

The Trump administration’s demands, which go far beyond limiting discrimination and include requirements to ensure a certain level of “viewpoint diversity” within its staff and student body, amount to an explicit attempt to increase conservative control over the institution and effectively make it a state-run university.
“But a 400-year-old institution should be making decisions with a time horizon of centuries, not news cycles. Making a principled stand now – with the law squarely on its side – is the single best thing Harvard could do to earn its continued place as a symbol of genuine excellence, free inquiry, and commitment to the public good.” (Nikolas Bowie and Benjamin Eidelson, Harvard Law School professors, Boston Globe.)
If Harvard did not take a stand, it would be difficult for any other university to do so. Harvard, with its $53B endowment, is the wealthiest university in the world and has the resources to fight Trump. Specifically, it has roughly $10B in unrestricted funds to spend however it wants and, accounting for annual capital gains and the amount it uses to manage the endowment, could spend $500M without being in any worse financial position compared to 2023.

The Trump administration’s punishment of Harvard is legally unsound.

While Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (1964) does prohibit public funds from being spent on any program that encourages discrimination, Congress wrote that law with the intention of protecting due process and, in particular, the right to judicial review for institutions accused of discrimination. The Trump administration’s freezing of federal funding for alleged discrimination at Harvard is outside its authority and Harvard is right to fight it.
The Trump administration’s funding freeze effectively violates Harvard’s First Amendment right to free speech because it is removing an entitled benefit under the condition Harvard gives up its constitutional right to free speech, a stipulation referred to as an "unconstitutional condition.” Harvard’s policies, curriculum, and speech on campus amount to the institution speaking how it wants, the restriction of which would be a free speech violation.

More supportive of the Trump administration’s position:

Harvard and similar institutions promote progressive ideologies at the cost of inclusion.

While Harvard has taken some action to limit antisemitism on campus, the civil rights of Jewish students have been and continue to be violated on campus in the context of pro-Palestinian protests and in-class demonstrations. The Trump administration is right to demand it do more to protect diversity and free speech.
Harvard ranked last – 251 out of 251 schools analyzed – in a 2025 Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) survey on campus speech climate. The survey results described Harvard’s speech climate as “abysmal” based on a variety of factors including students’ comfort levels expressing their own ideas, student-perceived levels of self-censorship, and students’ understanding of faculty positions on free speech.

Withholding federal funding from private institutions is within the government’s right.

Threatening to withhold federal funding from universities is not without precedent – one set by the Obama and Biden administrations. For example, Former President Obama instituted a Title IX enforcement policy that many saw as suppressing due process and the rights of those accused of sexual harassment, with Obama conditioning federal funding to universities on their compliance with the new policy. A number of Harvard Law professors formally objected to the Obama administration’s policy given its level of infringement on due process.
“As the federal government reminds Garber, ‘an investment is not an entitlement.’ Private universities are free to teach what they’d like – but if they expect their activity to be funded by the American people, they must justify the value proposition. And they have failed in spectacular fashion.” (Natalie Sandoval, Daily Caller.)
Harvard and similar universities have long promoted a narrowly defined, left-leaning ideology and marginalized those that don’t agree with it, assuming the federal government would always continue supporting it. But now that a conservative government is in power, institutions are meeting the limitations of ideology-driven policies.

1-question poll!

Snippets

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Friday that the US would abandon its efforts to end the war in Ukraine if it finds within the next few days that doing so would not be possible within the next few weeks. The remarks come amid the government’s efforts to communicate with both sides on a potential end to the war.
Judge James Boasberg, chief judge in the Federal District Court in Washington DC, issued a ruling that threatened to hold the Trump administration in contempt for its failure to return two planes carrying deported migrants to El Salvador after the judge’s order blocking the deportations last month. Boasberg’s ruling requires the Trump administration to give the deportees an opportunity to challenge their removal in court.
The UK Supreme Court ruled that the term “woman” refers to a “biological woman” assigned female at birth. According to the court, the ruling would not affect discrimination protections for transgender people under the UK’s Equality Act.
President Trump will reportedly replace acting IRS commissioner Gary Shapley, who was appointed this week. He will be replaced by Deputy Treasury Secretary Michael Faulkender, who will become the fifth person to take the position this year.
Ford has reportedly paused shipments of some SUVs, trucks, and sedans to China to avoid tariffs in the country that could be as high as 150% on those vehicles. The pause comes amid the broader US-China trade war that has escalated over the past several weeks.

Music on the bottom

Check out this brand new release, “God Loves Weirdos,” from one of my favorite bands, Mt. Joy. It has the vintage Mt. Joy songwriting feel and reminds me in a way of – bonus track (!) – “Bathroom Light.” (Specific, visceral imagery that feels modern and timeless all at once.)

Listen to “God Loves Weirdos” on Spotify, Apple Music, or Amazon Music.

Listen to “Bathroom Light” on Spotify, Apple Music, or Amazon Music.

Sweeping US tariffs

Eric Thompson — Sun, 13 Apr 2025 03:19:09 GMT

Wolfgang Weiser / Unsplash

What’s happening

This week, President Trump announced a 90-day pause on sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs issued against roughly 90 countries globally, hours after they went into effect. The Trump administration said the pause was in response to 75+ nations indicating a willingness to negotiate, with Trump later telling reporters that financial market uneasiness was also a driver.

The administration subsequently elevated tariffs on China to an effective rate of 145%, citing “the lack of respect that China has shown to the World’s Markets.” It also left in place baseline 10% tariffs on most countries that Trump had introduced alongside the “reciprocal” tariffs last week on a day he called “Liberation Day.”

Reminder: Tariffs are essentially taxes on imported goods, paid by domestic importers of materials and products from other countries. Historically, they have been used with intentions of raising government revenue, extracting concessions from foreign governments, or protecting domestic manufacturers. Some economists highlight their potential to pass along higher prices to consumers.

The “Liberation Day” tariffs: The paused “reciprocal” tariffs applied country-specific rates to the target nations on top of the baseline 10% tariffs. Had the “reciprocal” tariffs not been paused, total effective tariff rates (including the baseline 10%) for some countries would have reached 40%-50%.

The Trump administration explained the “Liberation Day” tariffs as a response to a trade system in which the US is continually taken advantage of and equated persistent trade deficits to a “national emergency that threatens our security and our very way of life.”

White House officials said the “reciprocal” tariffs were calculated by dividing a country’s trade surplus with the US by its total exports to the US, and dividing the result by two. Several goods exempt from the “reciprocal” tariffs include semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and “energy and other certain minerals that are not available in the United States.” Countries with small trade surpluses or trade deficits with the US, such as the UK and Brazil, will only face the minimum 10% baseline tariff.

Existing tariffs: Canada and Mexico, which currently face 10%-25% tariffs on goods not covered under the United States-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) trade agreement, were excluded from the new “Liberation Day” tariffs. Other recently-imposed tariffs such as 25% duties on foreign automobiles and 25% tariffs on metals are separate from the new sweeping tariffs and remain in effect. (See our previous coverage of the viewpoints on Trump’s metal tariffs here.)

Escalating trade war with China: China ultimately responded to the 145% tariff imposed by Trump with an effective 125% tariff on US goods, saying it would not raise tariffs further because current rates have virtually eliminated the market for US goods in China. Both countries exchanged tariff increases in a rapid tit-for-tat escalation following Trump’s “Liberation Day” announcement last week. The Trump administration announced yesterday that smartphones and other certain electronics would be exempt from the new tariffs on China.

The likelihood of “reciprocal” tariffs being resumed after the 90-day pause is still unclear and the long-term impact of active US tariffs remains uncertain. We take a look this week at the viewpoints from multiple sides on the merits of a sweeping US tariff policy. Let us know what you think.

Notable viewpoints

More supportive of sweeping tariffs:

Tariffs are needed to boost domestic manufacturing and strengthen national security.

There is precedent for using trade policy to successfully boost domestic manufacturing. After Former President Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, he negotiated a voluntary export quota (VER) from Japan, where Japan capped the number of automobiles exported to the US. It helped create “hundreds of thousands of American jobs” and save Detroit, with the Toyota Camry consisting of more American-made components than many other cars driven in the US.
Tariffs will help increase the domestic production of critical inputs to national security such as shipbuilding, microelectronics, and bio-manufacturing, making the US more self-sufficient for defense manufacturing and less likely to be caught in short supply or reliant on other countries in an emergency. (Summarized from White House fact sheet.)
American trading partners over the past few decades have actively enacted policies – including currency valuation, wage suppression, and subsidies – to boost their domestic manufacturing at the expense of US manufacturing, costing American jobs. It is reasonable for the US to demand more balanced trade in return for continued access to US markets.
Support for broad 10% tariffs exists on both sides of the aisle for their potential to improve American manufacturing. For example, Senate Democrat Jared Golden (D-Maine) introduced legislation in January that would codify 10% tariffs into law.

Trump’s sweeping tariffs are an effective negotiating tactic to get more from trading partners and allies.

Prior to Trump’s recent tariffs, the US had an effective tariff rate of roughly 3%, one of the lowest in the world. Given the outsized burden the US takes in defense spending (approximately $883B in 2024) compared to allies and the protection assurances it provides them, raising tariffs to balance trade is well within its reasonable right to demand more from allies.
“The notion of a ‘Mar-a-Lago Accord,’ based on the 1980s ‘Plaza Accord,’ fits squarely within [a trade-rebalancing] framework: bring US allies to the table to agree upon a revaluation of currencies that would help to rebalance trade, backed by the threat of tariffs or other trade actions against countries that fail to participate.” (Oren Cass, economist, Understanding America.)
Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs are more about free trade than protectionism. For too long, foreign companies have been given access to the American market while exporters have been denied that access to foreign markets. Reciprocal tariffs will help compel foreign trade partners to reduce barriers to their markets and ultimately lead to more free trade, not less.
That some allied countries have capitulated in response to the "reciprocal" tariffs is a sign that Trump’s aggressive global tariffs were effective negotiating leverage. Israel, for instance, removed all of its remaining tariffs on US goods shortly before “Liberation Day” in anticipation of the tariffs.

Sweeping tariffs will help reduce the national deficit and benefit the economy.

Sweeping global tariffs may drive investors into historically safer investments such as the US 10-year Treasury note (T-note), which would drive down the T-note’s annual yield (the annualized return investors get from holding a 10-year T-note) and ultimately compel the US Federal Reserve to reduce interest rates. Every 0.01% reduction in interest rates, according to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, translates to $1B in debt cost savings for the government per year. For the period between Apr 2 and Apr 5 after the “Liberation Day” tariffs announcement, the 0.3% drop in T-note yields would have translated to $30B in savings. (Editor’s note: The 10-year T-note yield has since increased to 4.5% as of this writing, after sitting at roughly 4% just before Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariff announcement.)
The 10% baseline tariffs, which a 2024 study by A Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) projected will generate $728B in government revenue in their first year, will help enable the government to create tax cuts for consumers while maintaining Medicaid and Social Security programs.

Tariffs are needed to counter China.

Significant tariffs on China, along with cooperation among allies to exclude it from the Western sphere of trade, are important to counter China’s goal of dominating supply chains for valuable products and for technologies critical to military progress.
Trump’s first-term tariffs on China had minimal negative impact on US inflation or economic growth, with Former President Biden actually keeping and increasing some of them in order to boost domestic manufacturing in critical sectors such as semiconductors and clean energy. Biden, like many leaders on both sides of the aisle, recognized the importance of countering the China threat.

More opposed to sweeping tariffs:

Sweeping tariffs will hurt the US economy and consumers.

The baseline tariffs and now-paused “reciprocal” tariffs would together amount to one of the most significant effective tax hikes on American consumers in history, passing along higher costs to consumers. The Yale Budget Lab projected that the “Liberation Day” tariffs and other tariffs Trump has implemented since retaking office would collectively drive an approximate $3,800 decline in real purchasing power per household annually.
Sweeping tariffs, paired with Trump’s other in-progress policies such as immigration and federal workforce cuts, threaten to create a stagflation environment (i.e., high inflation with low economic growth), which hasn’t happened since the 1970s. An April University of Michigan consumer sentiment survey found that Americans predict inflation will rise 6.7% over the next year and roughly ⅔ expect unemployment to rise.
China has the upper hand in a bilateral trade war. Contrary to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s argument that the US has the advantage because it exports “one-fifth” of the value of goods to China that China exports to the US, it is usually the country that has the trade surplus that wins. In this scenario, the US is effectively giving up vital goods and services it can’t produce competitively at home and for which it depends on China, while China is only giving up money, which it can find elsewhere (e.g., with other trade partners) or save by cutting back on spending.
There is no guarantee that the “Liberation Day” tariffs will bring down 10-year T-note yields, as some supportive of the tariff plan have contended they will. In fact, yields have increased since the “reciprocal” tariffs were first announced, which was likely a significant factor in Trump’s decision to pause them.

Tariffs will not drive meaningful improvements in domestic manufacturing.

To achieve the sort of reindustrialization Trump says he is aiming to achieve with tariffs would take years if not decades, a politically untenable timeline to maintain tariffs that could hurt US economic growth in the meantime. Alcoa CEO Bill Oplinger recently illustrated this when saying in February that, “We make decisions around aluminum production that have a horizon of 20 to 40 years…We would not be making an investment in the United States based on a tariff structure that could be in place for a much shorter period of time.” (Summarized from CNN analysis.)
Widespread tariffs on automobile parts and other goods may actually hurt many domestic manufacturers. For example, a significant percentage of the parts that GM uses to make cars in the US come from other countries, and widespread tariffs will increase its production costs.
Sweeping tariffs won’t help domestic manufacturers. Any benefits gained from import taxes will be offset by higher input costs and retaliation abroad that will hurt American exporters and cost American jobs.

Sweeping tariffs will push away important allies.

Trump’s decision to apply sweeping tariffs on friendly nations – many of which, for example, fought alongside the US in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11 – will erode trust and weaken relationships with allies that are important to US national security.
The threat of dominance in global trade by China – which controls an estimated ⅓ of global manufacturing output – is real and needs to be addressed, but rather than penalizing US allies, Trump should work with them to collectively embargo China. Sweeping tariffs on US allies threaten to push them away and potentially closer to China’s sphere of influence.
“The cost in lost American influence will be considerable. Mr. Trump thinks the lure of the US market and American military power are enough to bend countries to his will. But soft power also matters, and that includes being able to trust America’s word as a reliable ally and trading partner. Mr. Trump is shattering that trust as he punishes allies and blows up the USMCA that he negotiated in his first term.” (Wall Street Journal Editorial Board.)

Trump’s apparent motivations for the tariffs are misguided.

While Trump likes to cite the alleged wealth and prosperity of the US during the late 1800s – when the US government had tariff-heavy policies – the US is much better off today than it was then. For instance, GDP per capita, adjusted for inflation, was 12x higher in 2022 than in 1870 and 6x higher than in 1913.
Trade deficits are not necessarily a “loss,” as Trump has contended. The US carries trade deficits and trade surpluses with various countries based primarily on differences in comparative advantage. For example, the US has a trade deficit with Germany because Americans like to buy German cars and carries a trade surplus with the Netherlands because the Dutch like to buy American medical supplies and pharmaceuticals.

Other viewpoints:

“[T]he United States must emphasize that there is no magic number for countries to spend that proves they are ‘doing enough.’ …Japan’s goal should not be to spend 2% of GDP on defense, at which point the US promises to defend it from China…No, Japan’s defense spending will be sufficient when it feels secure from China. Germany’s spending will be sufficient when it can successfully deter Russia.” (Oren Cass, economist, Understanding America.)
To achieve success, Trump should more directly communicate the long-term strategy of global tariffs, ensure their permanence through congressional legislation, and commit to maintaining them as firms need to trust his policies will remain in place before they commit to reshoring. He should also roll the tariffs out more gradually than through an all-at-once approach.

Snippets

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration can resume application of the Alien Enemies Act (1798) to deport alleged noncitizen gang members, but added that deportees must have “reasonable time” to challenge their removals in court. Federal judges in New York and Texas issued orders to temporarily halt the deportation of several purported Venezuelan gang members, citing the ruling.
The Trump administration has paused roughly $790M in funding for Northwestern University and roughly $1B in funding for Cornell University while it conducts civil rights investigations into the schools. The pause comes amid similar investigations into universities including Columbia, Harvard, Brown, and Princeton.
Year-over-year inflation cooled to 2.4% as measured by March’s consumer price index (CPI), below the 2.6% forecasted by economists. Monthly rates were also lower than expectations, falling 0.1%.
A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration must restore the Associated Press’s full access to the White House press pool, declaring the government cannot punish the news organization for the content of its speech under the First Amendment. The White House had barred the outlet from certain events over its choice to continue using “Gulf of Mexico” after it was renamed the “Gulf of America.”
Democrats in Congress are calling for an investigation into whether executive branch officials engaged in insider trading or market manipulation by potentially benefiting from knowledge that President Trump would issue a 90-day pause of the “reciprocal” tariffs earlier this week.

Give us your feedback! Please let us know how we can improve.

Your feedback

Music on the bottom

A rare but essential house music plug this week. And a throwback at that. Slip into a head-bobbing trance this weekend with Tiësto’s mix of Imogen Heap’s timeless “Hide & Seek.”

Listen on Spotify, Apple Music, or Amazon Music.

Proof of citizenship requirements for voting

Eric Thompson — Sat, 29 Mar 2025 05:04:56 GMT

Missvain / Wikimedia Commons

Exciting opportunity for students

Before we dive in this week, I want to highlight an exciting event that partner organization Close Up is putting on with Stanford University. Close Up is the nation’s leading nonpartisan, nonprofit civic education organization and is closely aligned to Framechange’s mission of promoting civil discourse.

Do you know a high school student with a special interest in AI, its impacts, and shaping tech policy? Close Up and Stanford’s Deliberative Democracy Lab are hosting the NextGen Roundtable: AI & Democracy Summer Institute on the Stanford campus this July 13-19. It’s an incredible chance to experience Stanford, engage with faculty, and hear a variety of perspectives from peers nationwide. Applications are now open!

Eric

What’s happening

This week, President Trump signed an executive order that aims to require proof of US citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections. Existing rules, under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) (1993), require any individual registering to vote for federal elections (i.e., presidential and congressional races) to attest their US citizenship under penalty of perjury, but they do not require documented proof.

The order: Trump’s order specifically instructs the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) – a small, independent federal agency responsible for improving the administration of elections – to update the federal voter registration form to require that registrants submit documentary proof of US citizenship with the form. Acceptable proof would include a US passport, a REAL ID-compliant driver’s license, or a military ID displaying citizenship. (A birth certificate is not explicitly mentioned.)

While the order would require states to use the new federal form, it is unclear the extent to which states would be pressured to apply the same proof of citizenship standards to state forms (i.e., alternatives to the federal form that enable residents to register for local, state, and federal elections all-in-one).

Other election rules the order calls for include making Election Day the hard deadline by which all ballots would need to be received in order to count (some states allow mail-in ballots to arrive late as long as they are postmarked by Election Day), removing all noncitizens from voter rolls (i.e., lists of registered voters), and discontinuing ballots with QR codes in favor of paper ballots. States that don’t comply with the rule changes could face federal funding restrictions.

Existing state rules: Roughly 8 states have passed legislation that requires proof of citizenship to register to vote in some form, although many of their efforts have been challenged in court. Arizona, for instance, adopted separate citizenship proof rules across its two-ballot system in 2024. Voters who registered for the “full ballot” – covering federal, state, and local elections – were required to provide proof of citizenship. Voters who registered for the “federal only” ballot did not have to provide documentary proof and could only vote in the presidential and Congressional races. A federal court, however, recently ruled Arizona could not reject registrants outright that register for the “full ballot” without proof of citizenship.

Trump’s authority: Many observers contend Trump does not have authority on his own to require proof of citizenship for federal voting registration. The EAC was set up by congressional statute and changes to voter registration requirements would likely require an act of Congress. The order is expected to face legal challenges.

Trump’s order echoes existing congressional legislation called the SAVE Act (2024), which would require proof of citizenship on the federal form. The bill passed the House of Representatives last year with support from 5 Democrats, but is viewed as unlikely to pass the Senate.

While the tangible impact of Trump’s order remains to be seen, it surfaces a longstanding debate over proof of citizenship requirements in voter registration. This week, we take a look at the viewpoints from multiple sides. Let us know what you think.

Notable viewpoints

More opposed to requiring proof of citizenship:

Proof of citizenship requirements would be overly burdensome and reduce voter turnout.

Requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration would limit the ability for potentially millions of Americans to vote. A 2023 study by Brennan Center for Justice found that 21.3M Americans (9% of the population) don’t have ready access to citizenship proof (e.g., due to documents being in a family member’s home or locked in a safety deposit box) and 3.8M people don’t have access to documents at all (e.g., due to them being stolen, lost, or destroyed).
Kansas’ state law requiring proof of citizenship in state-form voter registration, which was eventually halted in court, was found by the state to block roughly 30,000 legitimate citizens from registering to vote.
Proof of citizenship mandates for voter registration would overwhelm state election offices with bureaucratic red tape that are not equipped to verify citizenship and likely increase costs required to implement the necessary systems and personnel.

Proof of citizenship requirements suppress the vote of specific groups.

Requiring proof of citizenship would disproportionately disenfranchise minority voters. A 2023 study by Brennan Center for Justice and University of Maryland found that roughly 11% of respondents identifying as people of color don’t have citizenship documents readily available compared to roughly 8% of respondents identifying as white.
Citizenship proof requirements would suppress the vote of the elderly. A 2006 study by Opinion Research Corporation found that roughly 2.3M elderly citizens (7% of the elderly population) did not have a passport or birth certificate readily available.
Requiring citizenship proof for voter registration would affect low-income citizens more than others. A 2006 study by Opinion Research Corporation found that people making less than $25,000 annually were more than twice as likely to lack adequate citizenship documentation compared to those with higher incomes – an estimated 3M people in this demographic lacked the required documentation.
Rural residents would be disproportionately affected by citizenship proof requirements largely because they live in areas where it is more difficult or inconvenient to obtain proper documentation. A 2006 study by Opinion Research Corporation found that roughly 9% of rural Americans (4.5M people) lacked passports or birth certificates compared to 4.5% of Americans in non-rural areas.

Noncitizen voting and voter fraud are extremely rare.

Existing safeguards and punishments for illegal noncitizen voting make it very uncommon. A 2017 study by Brennan Center for Justice on the 2016 federal elections across 42 jurisdictions found that, among 23.5M votes cast in those jurisdictions, there were an estimated 30 suspected instances (0.0001%) of noncitizen voting, and not all of them were confirmed.
“Imagine you’re an undocumented person living in the United States…Would you risk everything — your freedom, your life in the United States, your ability to be near your family — just to cast a single ballot? Of course you wouldn’t.” (Sean Morales-Doyle, Brennan Center for Justice.)
Voter fraud is extremely rare. From 2000 to 2020, according to conservative think tank Heritage Foundation’s own database, there were 250M votes cast and only 193 criminal convictions for voter fraud of all types. There were only 70 instances of noncitizen voting.

More supportive of requiring proof of citizenship:

Proof of citizenship requirements are popular with American voters.

A majority of Americans, across party lines, support requiring proof of citizenship to vote. A 2024 Gallup poll found that 83% of Americans support requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote and 84% support citizenship proof requirements when voting.
“Voter ID laws can stop multiple types of fraud, such as impersonating another registered voter, preventing noncitizens from voting, and stopping out-of-state residents or someone registered in multiple jurisdictions. It’s safe to say there is bipartisan consensus for voter ID but a clear partisan divide in the political class. That wasn’t always the case.” (Fred Lucas, Washington Examiner.)

Requiring proof of citizenship is necessary to ensure the integrity of elections.

Requiring proof of citizenship is a common-sense measure to reduce fraud and ensure that only US citizens vote in federal elections, as the law intends. Voters are already required by federal law to be citizens, so requiring ID ensures the law is followed.
Even a small number of illegitimate votes has the effect of diluting legitimate votes, effectively cancelling out one legitimate vote for every illegitimate vote cast and eroding the one-person-one-vote principle.
Citizenship proof would be a valuable step toward improving confidence in US election integrity, with confidence levels in election outcomes fluctuating along partisan lines over the past couple of elections.
Ramping up proof of citizenship requirements would align with democratic norms in other countries. For example, Brazil and India have implemented biometric verification for voting, Canada and Germany require casting paper ballots in person, and Sweden and Denmark only allow mail-in voting for those who cannot vote in person (e.g., those who are abroad, ill, or disabled). (Summarized from White House fact sheet on the executive order.)
A unified, national rule requiring proof of citizenship for voting in federal elections establishes a clear line, ensures consistency across states, and prevents potential “spillover” or confusion among noncitizens that have been permitted to vote in some state and local elections.

Noncitizens have voted illegally in the past.

There have been documented instances of noncitizens being added to voter rolls or casting ballots. For instance, Oregon found that roughly 1,600 noncitizens had been added to its state voter roll due to errant paperwork processing at the DMV between 2021-2024 – which could have enabled those noncitizens to vote – before the state implemented fixes to limit the issue from occurring in the future.
Voting by noncitizens may have swayed past elections. A 2014 study of the 2008 and 2010 federal elections by Old Dominion and George Mason researchers stated a “best guess” that 6.4% of all noncitizens in the US voted in the 2008 election and that this was likely enough to award North Carolina’s electoral votes to Barack Obama rather than John McCain. (Summarized from white paper by Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R – Louisiana).)

Proof of citizenship and voter ID laws do not reduce turnout.

Laws requiring photo ID do not reduce election turnout. A 2019 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) found that existing state laws requiring voters to present a valid form of ID in state elections do not meaningfully reduce voter turnout for any group defined by party affiliation, race, or gender.

Snippets

The top Republican and top Democrat on the Senate Armed Forces Committee called for an inquiry into the Trump administration’s use of the messaging app Signal to discuss military strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen. The Signal chat was revealed by The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg after he was inadvertently added to it.
At least 144 people were killed and more than 730 injured after a 7.7-magnitude earthquake struck Myanmar near the city of Mandalay, according to the country’s military junta. The tremors were felt more than 600 miles away in Bangkok, Thailand, where 8 people died and dozens remain trapped after a high-rise under construction collapsed.
Thousands of Palestinians took to the streets in northern Gaza to protest Hamas and call for the end of the war with Israel, in what appeared to be the largest protest against the militant group since its attacks on Israel on Oct 7 2023.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the State Department has revoked more than 300 student visas. Affected students include an international student at Tufts University connected to pro-Palestinian activism who was detained by immigration officers earlier this week.
President Trump announced 25% tariffs on all foreign-made cars and auto parts imported into the US starting Apr 3. Nearly half of all vehicles sold in the US in 2024 were assembled outside the country.

Give us your feedback! Please let us know how we can improve.

Your feedback

Music on the bottom

Check out this bass-driven groove, “The Smoke,” by former Radiohead front man Thom Yorke’s lesser-known band, The Smile.

Listen on Spotify, Apple Music, or Amazon Music.