Category: reason

Trump Issues Another Unconstitutional Executive Order Targeting Birthright Citizenship

Milla74/Dreamstime

In Trump v. Barbara, issued in June, the Supreme Court ruled against Donald Trump’s executive order denying birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants born in the United States, and those born to non-citizen parents here on temporary visas. Today, Trump issued another executive order seeking to narrow birthright citzenship, one that is also unconstitutional, even though the groups affected are much smaller than those targeted by the earlier order.

Today’s order denies birthright citizenship to four categories of children:

  1.  Children of “alien enemies,” defined as those where at least one parent is a  “designated Foreign Terrorist Organization under 8 U.S.C. 1189 or Specially Designated Global Terrorist, consistent with the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq., and Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001 (Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism).”
  2. Children born to at least one parent who is a “foreign government employee” or employed by an “international organization that possess international-organization immunity.”
  3. Children where “either parent” has engaged in “birth tourist” transactions of various kinds (seeking to give birth in the US so the child would get birthright citizenship).
  4. Children “born in a territory or territorial waters of the United States where citizenship is not conferred by Federal statute.” As far as I can tell (I welcome correction by experts), this only applies to children born in American Samoa, the one overseas US territory to whose residents Congress has not conferred citizenship by statute.

With one exception (children of foreign-government employees who have diplomatic immunity), all of these children are entitled to birthright citizenship under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as (rightly) interpreted by the Supreme Court in Trump v. Barbara. The Citizenship Clause grants citizenship to all children “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” In Barbara, the Supreme Court majority made clear that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” includes children of all persons who are subject to and require to obey US law:

In 1868, as today, “jurisdiction” (in the context of a sovereign) refers to the “[p]ower of governing or legislating.” N. Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language 732 (C. Goodrich & N. Porter eds. 1865)…. To be “subject to” the jurisdiction of the United States, then, is to “liv[e] under” its “dominion,” J. Worcester, Dictionary of the English Language 1435 (1860), a meaning reinforced by the Clause’s territorial focus on those born “in” the United States. The Citizenship Clause uses jurisdiction in its ordinary sense—referring to the power of the United States to govern those within its territory….

Almost all the groups covered by today’s order are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US in the sense that they are within the “dominion” of the US and thus legally required to obey US law. For example, if they commit a crime on US territory, they can be prosecuted, and if they commit a civil wrong, they can be sued in US courts.

That’s obviously true of those engaged in “birth tourism.” Indeed, the fact that Barbara covers birth tourists is reinforced by Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent complaining about this fact, at length. In a previous post, I have explained why the birth tourism problem is overblown and – indeed – not really a problem at all. But whatever we might think of this as a matter of morality or policy, it is undeniable that children of birth tourists are covered by the majority’s reasoning.

Much the same is true of children of most employees of foreign governments and international organization. With one notable exception, these people, too, are subject to US law, can be prosecuted for crimes, and so on. The exception is children of parents who have diplomatic immunity, such as ambassadors and other diplomats. Children of such people are already denied birthright citizenship, and have been since the inception of the Citizenship Clause in 1868.

The same reasoning applies to children born in US overseas territories where Congress has not granted citizenship by statute (again, at this point, that seems to include only those born in American Samoa; but I welcome correction from experts if I have this wrong). People living in these territories are undeniably subject to US law, and indeed Congress has plenary power to legislate with respect to them. I don’t know what Trump has against the people of American Samoa. But children born there are obviously entitled to birthright citizenship under the logic of Trump v. Barbara.

In Fitisemanu v. United States (2021), the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that people born in American Samoa are not entitled to birthright citizenship under the Constitution. But this decision was before Barbara and is at odds with its reasoning.

Finally, the same is true of children of “alien enemies,” defined in the order as members of various designated “terrorist” entities. If they enter the United States, they are subject to US law. That’s why they can be prosecuted for any crimes they commit on US soil – including acts of terrorism!

Members of these groups may be bad people. Some have committed horrendous crimes. But that is no reason to visit the sins of the parents upon the children. If a murderer or a rapist has a child born on US soil, the child is entitled to birthright citizenship, notwithstanding the reprehensible behavior of the parents. The same logic applies here.

It is also worth noting that the “foreign terrorist organization” (FTO) designation has been slapped onto various groups that are not actually terrorists in the ordinary meaning of the word, most notably groups engaged in smuggling illegal drugs.

Trump may be trying to use the “alien enemy” designation here to analogize these children to children of members of an invading army, born  at a time and place where the invaders have seized control of US territory, thereby preventing the exercise of US “jurisdiction.” Trump v. Barbara reaffirms the longstanding view that such children are excluded from birthright citizenship, because born in an area where US jurisdiction does not (at the time) meaningfully apply.

But FTOs have not, in fact, “invaded” or occupied any part of the United States. Thus, US jurisdiction still applies. Therefore, children of members these organizations are not analogous to children born to members of an occupying foreign army. No part of the United States has actually been invaded and occupied since the Japanese seized various US territories in the Pacific during World War II.

In my article, “Immigration is Not Invasion” (currently under submission to law journals), I explain in much more detail why the activities of drug dealers do not qualify as an “invasion,” why an FTO designation cannot change that reality, and why courts should not defer to the president’s claims that an “invasion” has occurred.

I expect today’s order will be challenged in court, and I hope and at least tentatively expect, courts will rule against it. With respect to some parts of it that apply only to relatively narrow categories of people, it may take some time to find plaintiffs who have standing (though it’s possible state governments can get standing to file a case, as happened in lower-court cases in the earlier birthright citizenship litigation).

More can be said, and I will in fact likely have more to say about this order in the future. For now, it’s enough to emphasize that large parts of it are blatantly unconstitutional under Trump v. Barbara.

The post Trump Issues Another Unconstitutional Executive Order Targeting Birthright Citizenship appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/5nr2Jbd
via IFTTT

Trump Issues Another Unconstitutional Executive Order Targeting Birthright Citizenship

Milla74/Dreamstime

In Trump v. Barbara, issued in June, the Supreme Court ruled against Donald Trump’s executive order denying birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants born in the United States, and those born to non-citizen parents here on temporary visas. Today, Trump issued another executive order seeking to narrow birthright citzenship, one that is also unconstitutional, even though the groups affected are much smaller than those targeted by the earlier order.

Today’s order denies birthright citizenship to four categories of children:

  1.  Children of “alien enemies,” defined as those where at least one parent is a  “designated Foreign Terrorist Organization under 8 U.S.C. 1189 or Specially Designated Global Terrorist, consistent with the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq., and Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001 (Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism).”
  2. Children born to at least one parent who is a “foreign government employee” or employed by an “international organization that possess international-organization immunity.”
  3. Children where “either parent” has engaged in “birth tourist” transactions of various kinds (seeking to give birth in the US so the child would get birthright citizenship).
  4. Children “born in a territory or territorial waters of the United States where citizenship is not conferred by Federal statute.” As far as I can tell (I welcome correction by experts), this only applies to children born in American Samoa, the one overseas US territory to whose residents Congress has not conferred citizenship by statute.

With one exception (children of foreign-government employees who have diplomatic immunity), all of these children are entitled to birthright citizenship under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as (rightly) interpreted by the Supreme Court in Trump v. Barbara. The Citizenship Clause grants citizenship to all children “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” In Barbara, the Supreme Court majority made clear that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” includes children of all persons who are subject to and require to obey US law:

In 1868, as today, “jurisdiction” (in the context of a sovereign) refers to the “[p]ower of governing or legislating.” N. Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language 732 (C. Goodrich & N. Porter eds. 1865)…. To be “subject to” the jurisdiction of the United States, then, is to “liv[e] under” its “dominion,” J. Worcester, Dictionary of the English Language 1435 (1860), a meaning reinforced by the Clause’s territorial focus on those born “in” the United States. The Citizenship Clause uses jurisdiction in its ordinary sense—referring to the power of the United States to govern those within its territory….

Almost all the groups covered by today’s order are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US in the sense that they are within the “dominion” of the US and thus legally required to obey US law. For example, if they commit a crime on US territory, they can be prosecuted, and if they commit a civil wrong, they can be sued in US courts.

That’s obviously true of those engaged in “birth tourism.” Indeed, the fact that Barbara covers birth tourists is reinforced by Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent complaining about this fact, at length. In a previous post, I have explained why the birth tourism problem is overblown and – indeed – not really a problem at all. But whatever we might think of this as a matter of morality or policy, it is undeniable that children of birth tourists are covered by the majority’s reasoning.

Much the same is true of children of most employees of foreign governments and international organization. With one notable exception, these people, too, are subject to US law, can be prosecuted for crimes, and so on. The exception is children of parents who have diplomatic immunity, such as ambassadors and other diplomats. Children of such people are already denied birthright citizenship, and have been since the inception of the Citizenship Clause in 1868.

The same reasoning applies to children born in US overseas territories where Congress has not granted citizenship by statute (again, at this point, that seems to include only those born in American Samoa; but I welcome correction from experts if I have this wrong). People living in these territories are undeniably subject to US law, and indeed Congress has plenary power to legislate with respect to them. I don’t know what Trump has against the people of American Samoa. But children born there are obviously entitled to birthright citizenship under the logic of Trump v. Barbara.

In Fitisemanu v. United States (2021), the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that people born in American Samoa are not entitled to birthright citizenship under the Constitution. But this decision was before Barbara and is at odds with its reasoning.

Finally, the same is true of children of “alien enemies,” defined in the order as members of various designated “terrorist” entities. If they enter the United States, they are subject to US law. That’s why they can be prosecuted for any crimes they commit on US soil – including acts of terrorism!

Members of these groups may be bad people. Some have committed horrendous crimes. But that is no reason to visit the sins of the parents upon the children. If a murderer or a rapist has a child born on US soil, the child is entitled to birthright citizenship, notwithstanding the reprehensible behavior of the parents. The same logic applies here.

It is also worth noting that the “foreign terrorist organization” (FTO) designation has been slapped onto various groups that are not actually terrorists in the ordinary meaning of the word, most notably groups engaged in smuggling illegal drugs.

Trump may be trying to use the “alien enemy” designation here to analogize these children to children of members of an invading army, born  at a time and place where the invaders have seized control of US territory, thereby preventing the exercise of US “jurisdiction.” Trump v. Barbara reaffirms the longstanding view that such children are excluded from birthright citizenship, because born in an area where US jurisdiction does not (at the time) meaningfully apply.

But FTOs have not, in fact, “invaded” or occupied any part of the United States. Thus, US jurisdiction still applies. Therefore, children of members these organizations are not analogous to children born to members of an occupying foreign army. No part of the United States has actually been invaded and occupied since the Japanese seized various US territories in the Pacific during World War II.

In my article, “Immigration is Not Invasion” (currently under submission to law journals), I explain in much more detail why the activities of drug dealers do not qualify as an “invasion,” why an FTO designation cannot change that reality, and why courts should not defer to the president’s claims that an “invasion” has occurred.

I expect today’s order will be challenged in court, and I hope and at least tentatively expect, courts will rule against it. With respect to some parts of it that apply only to relatively narrow categories of people, it may take some time to find plaintiffs who have standing (though it’s possible state governments can get standing to file a case, as happened in lower-court cases in the earlier birthright citizenship litigation).

More can be said, and I will in fact likely have more to say about this order in the future. For now, it’s enough to emphasize that large parts of it are blatantly unconstitutional under Trump v. Barbara.

The post Trump Issues Another Unconstitutional Executive Order Targeting Birthright Citizenship appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/5nr2Jbd
via IFTTT

The GOP Is Warning About Socialism While Quietly Embracing It


Donald Trump stands in front of green buildings | Illustration: Midjourney

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) released their platform last month, and let’s give them credit for candor. They want public ownership of large corporations, the abolition of police and prisons, a defunded Pentagon, and open borders. Conservatives read that document and saw the future they have been warning American voters about: the government seizing the commanding heights of the economy and becoming owner rather than referee.

Their alarm is warranted. The socialist program would be a catastrophe. So, here’s an awkward question: Why is a Republican administration quietly doing the public ownership of businesses part on its own?

Last week, the Commerce Department announced that letters of intent have been signed to provide federal incentives to seven more companies under the CHIPS program. Each letter of intent is conditioned on the government taking an equity stake. By a Cato Institute count, that brings the federal corporate portfolio to roughly 30 firms.

A year ago, these deals looked like improvisation—one-offs stitched together under pressure with President Donald Trump’s fluid negotiating style. Now, the department announces them in batches. Federal ownership of private companies has become routine, and it is happening on the right even as members busily point fingers at the left for its socialism.

To be sure, this is not the abolition of private property that some in the DSA would love to see. But strip away the label and look at the mechanism. Socialism’s defining move is to put ownership and decision making in the same collective hands. A government equity stake does exactly that. Washington already regulates these firms, buys from them, and subsidizes them. Now, it owns pieces of them. Every lever it controls—tariffs, permits, contracts, the next tranche of subsidies—moves the value of its own holdings.

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, sees the implication of the government stake ownership more clearly than most Republicans do. “When government owns part or all of private companies,” he writes, “government is no longer just setting the rules—it becomes a player in the game and sets the rules to its own advantage and against the people.” Polis adds: “Socialism concentrates political and economic power in the same hands.” He is right, and it ought to sting.

Polis later asked during a Fox News segment where the Republicans denouncing this policy are. There are some, like Sens. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) and Rand Paul (R–Ky.), but it’s a fair question. The answer is probably that politicians condemn a thing only until their own side does it too. Still, the silence from most of the GOP on so fundamental an issue is truly baffling.

As Cato’s Tad DeHaven notes, “The seven nonbinding letters of intent would provide up to $874 million in CHIPS and Science Act research and development incentives.” Remember when most Republicans were against the CHIPS Act passed under former President Joe Biden? I do. And remember when they claimed to care about fiscal responsibility?

How about opposing ownership stakes simply because the right may not always be in charge? An executive branch that can hand out ownership at its discretion has acquired a permanent power, and such powers outlive the people who establish them. Picture a future Democratic president inheriting 30 companies’ worth of shareholder rights and the leverage that comes with these: board seats, emissions mandates, conditions bolted onto the next round of funding.

This is no paranoid fantasy. The Senate’s defense bill would give the Pentagon its own equity portfolio, which means Congress may write the administration’s practice into statute rather than kill it. The right is loading a gun and trusting that only its friends will hold it. LOL, as the young people say.

The economics of government ownership of company shares are worse than the politics. A government does not allocate capital to its highest-valued use; it allocates capital to its most politically valued use. A project that moves forward in a fair market does not need taxpayer money. A project that moves forward due only to government intervention is a loser that the taxpayer is buying.

Either way, the equity stake fixes nothing. It stacks a conflict of interest on top of a market-distorting subsidy. And once the Treasury owns a slice, a failing firm will always be ripe for a General Motors-style bailout.

Finally, you can spare me the national-security argument about needing the domestic chip capacity, steel, and rare-earth materials that these companies provide. Government ownership is not the instrument. Procurement contracts and long-term purchase agreements can secure supplies without making the Commerce secretary a shareholder.

The DSA at least tells Americans clearly what it wants. The danger on the right is quieter: a government acquiring the means of production one letter of intent at a time, and a political party acting as though socialism is something only the other side can do.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM

The post The GOP Is Warning About Socialism While Quietly Embracing It appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/TBVHXF1
via IFTTT

Francesca Hong’s Hateful Holidays, Burrito Prices, and Woke 1.0

Robby Soave and Christian Britschgi survey the latest fights inside American politics and culture, from Francesca Hong’s war on holidays to the Midwest’s emergence as a hub for democratic socialism. They argue that the war on “woke” has largely been won, while figures like Hasan Piker and Tucker Carlson continue attempting to scramble the political landscape. The episode also detours into burrito discourse, young men’s grievances, race relations in Western civilization, and the ethics of euthanasia. Finally, Christian offers his thoughts on The Staircase.

0:00—Hong’s war on holidays

1:37—Robby’s first Bane impression in weeks

6:00—The Midwest is becoming the breeding ground for democratic socialists.

11:03—We won the war on “woke.”

16:34—Piker is a liability, even for Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan

25:02—Tucker Carlson wants to create another third political party

30:34—The burrito discourse is crazy

44:06—Young men are systemically oppressed?

50:10—Race relations in Western civilization

1:03:40—Debate over euthanasia

1:14:15—Christian watched The Staircase 

The post Francesca Hong's Hateful Holidays, Burrito Prices, and Woke 1.0 appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/Y52u3vm
via IFTTT

A Viral Tweet Set Off a Discourse on $20 Burritos. Here’s the Truth About Inflation.


A burrito with a $20 price tag | Illustration: Midjourney

“A burrito shouldn’t cost $20.”

That’s what one Turning Point USA college student recently told the organization’s spokesman, Andrew Kolvet, who posted the comment on X in response to conservative pundit Matt Walsh’s complaints about rising grocery prices. Kolvet’s post garnered a massive response this week, sparking a debate among conservatives about the price of burritos and what the “America First” response should be.

Weighing in on the discourse, conservative commentator Ben Shapiro posted: “Current ‘common good conservative’ inflation messaging: $20 burritos are a human right but also every serious methodology for making them cheaper (i.e. kill the tariffs, break the unions, and deregulate the food supply chain) isn’t America First, so we need to complain a lot about how America is cooked and then surrender to Iran.”

Helpfully, Advancing American Freedom—a nonprofit launched by former Vice President Mike Pence—even created a “Burrito Index,” which found that a Chipotle steak burrito costs $14.10 in San Francisco and $13.50 in New York City. On the cheaper end, it costs $11.35 in Des Moines, Iowa, and $11.50 in Salt Lake City.

So why are burritos so expensive? 

“A price change over a given period of time is affected by two factors: the general inflation in the economy, which is raising all prices, and specific things that are happening in individual markets that affect the relative prices of those goods,” Ryan Bourne, an economist at the Cato Institute and author of The War on Prices, tells Reason. “If the question is why are burritos now so much more expensive in dollar terms than they were six years ago, overwhelmingly the reason for that is just the high inflation that we’ve lived through.”

Bourne notes that overall consumer prices have increased by around 28 percent over six years, so general inflation “accounts for the vast bulk of the increase in burrito prices.”

A myriad of other factors also contribute to the final price of a product, including tariffs, energy costs, minimum wage laws, and immigration crackdowns (which increase the cost of labor).

California provides a good test case for this. Earlier this year, Axios compared old and current menus at several popular Mexican restaurants in San Diego, and found increases ranging from around 19 percent to more than 70 percent. Harry’s Taco Club raised its price from $9.95 in 2020–2021 to $15.99 in 2026, while Lolita’s went from $7.75 in 2020 to $13.45 today. Restaurant owners attributed the increases to higher costs for labor, ingredients, rent, and insurance, with beef prices rising particularly sharply.

“There’s this kind of fragile public acceptance with prices that when you see a big burst of price increases, people instinctively seem to treat the previous price as something good, fair, and holy, and the new price after that big surge in demand as something unjust, unacceptable, and in need of redress,” says Bourne. “We still seem to be in that state of reacting to the inflation at the moment.”

Politicians also sounded off on the burrito debate, including Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R–Texas), who told people to “stop whining, get a job, eat Ramen.”

Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen took a similar line: “A burrito only costs $20 when you buy it on Door Dash because you’re too lazy to walk over to Chipotle or Taco Bell….When I graduated I lived on ramen noodles, had two roommates, and worked two jobs. I didn’t whine about affordability, I worked hard so I could one day afford a better life.”

It is, of course, true that fast food is more expensive than cooking yourself, but Bourne worries “that type of stuff kind of gets policymakers off the hook, because clearly what is annoying people is the change that they’ve seen in a short period of time.”

“If politicians really do actually believe that food should be more affordable, there’s plenty they could do. They could take off all the tariffs on food….They could get rid of the sugar program.”

If a social media post about the cost of a burrito can spark an internet firestorm, it is clear that Americans are weary of the cost of living. Politicians can lecture people to lower their expectations (which is sure to backfire at the ballot box), or they can stop pursuing the inflationary policies that make burritos, and everything else, more expensive.

The post A Viral Tweet Set Off a Discourse on $20 Burritos. Here's the Truth About Inflation. appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/suYhGUg
via IFTTT

FCC Rule Change Would Allow More Broadcast Mergers, but It’s Not Clear the FCC Has That Power.


FCC Chairman Brendan Carr | Gwinn/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom

This week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to abolish a rule that limited how many broadcast TV stations a single person or company can own.

Some fear the new move will let President Donald Trump’s supporters monopolize broadcast TV. It’s also not clear if the agency even has the authority to make the change. But if the rule change happens, it’s not as big of a problem as it may seem.

“Today, the Federal Communications Commission voted to repeal its 39% national television multiple ownership rule and replace it with a granular, case-by-case review,” the agency announced Thursday after its August Open Commission Meeting. “This will empower the FCC to approve deals that promote the public interest while allowing the agency to reject any deals that do not meet that standard.”

While the major networks—ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox—create or license content for broadcast, the local affiliate stations actually air it. In 1985, the FCC chose to “prohibit a single entity from owning television stations that collectively exceeded 25 percent of the total nationwide audience.” The agency has since raised that level to 39 percent, where it remained until this week.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has long said the cap is outdated. “The broadcast and broader media industry has transformed dramatically in recent years,” he wrote last month at Breitbart News. “And the cap no longer constrains the power of national programmers. Instead, it prevents local broadcasters from competing on a level playing field.”

While cable channels, streaming services, and podcasts have a potentially unlimited reach, Carr added, “the 39 percent cap continues to apply uniquely to the owners of local broadcast TV stations—forcing the market out of balance. Today, the cap is not protecting local broadcasters, it is preventing them from gaining the same scale that their competitors are free to enjoy.”

The FCC voted 2–1 this week to modify the rule, with Anna Gomez, the lone Democratic commissioner, in dissent.

“The FCC’s decision to eliminate the 39 percent national audience reach cap is unlawful on its face. Congress set this cap in federal law, and only Congress can change it,” Gomez said after the vote. “Eliminating the cap does not free local broadcasters from economic pressure, it just changes who is doing the squeezing. The large station groups positioned to grow even larger under this decision are not local broadcasters, they are national companies that own local stations and increasingly dictate what airs on them.”

“Changing this limit requires congressional action, but Carr doesn’t care. He’ll do whatever it takes to clear the way for Trump-aligned billionaires to swallow up stations wherever and whenever they please,” added Matt Wood, vice president of policy at the advocacy group Free Press, in a statement. “We intend to take the agency to court over today’s unlawful power grab.”

Changing the rule may, indeed, be outside the FCC’s authority—even Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) noted last month that he was “skeptical a change can be made absent an act of Congress.”

And former Rep. Tom DeLay (R–Texas), who negotiated the 39-percent provision into law, wrote this week in The Daily Wire that it also “prohibited the FCC from changing the cap in its biennial review of media ownership rules. The FCC was not allowed to waive the requirement, except to help companies come into compliance.”

In fact, Carr’s FCC already waived the 39-percent requirement once, when it allowed Nexstar to acquire Tegna in March, creating a combined company that would reach 80 percent of households. A federal judge has since halted the merger.

For that matter, Carr’s solution—reviewing mergers on a case-by-case basis—could be considerably more subjective than just scrapping the current rule altogether. “The change, if not stopped by courts, will make it easier for Carr to allow broadcast mergers that result in more favorable news coverage for President Trump,” Jon Brodkin writes at Ars Technica. “Carr has consistently threatened to revoke licenses from broadcasters who have drawn Trump’s ire, including by ordering an early license review of all ABC-owned stations.”

But from a practical standpoint, scrapping the rule is not as extreme, or unprecedented, as it may seem. The FCC determined in 1984 “that repealing the national TV ownership rule would not harm competition or diversity,” according to a 2003 order. “Consistent with our decision in 1984, we find that restricting national station ownership is not necessary to promote either of those policy objectives.” It stopped short of ending the rule altogether at the time, finding that a national cap did benefit local affiliates, though it raised that cap from 35 percent to 45 percent. (Congress later rolled back the cap to 39 percent.)

“As the record before us indicates, the media marketplace is undergoing unprecedented change,” the 2003 order continued. “Broadcast stations are subject to competition from cable and [satellite], and they face increased competition for viewers, advertising revenues, station network affiliations, and programming. We conclude that the 35% cap is no longer necessary to protect competition in the media marketplace and unnecessarily constrains the organization of, and investment in, free, over-the-air (i.e., non-subscription) broadcast television.”

Indeed, in the two dozen years since, consumers have enjoyed countless new competitors to traditional TV: The internet brought YouTube, streaming, and social media, all of which are growing as traditional broadcast loses viewers.

Last year, Nielsen reported that broadcast now represents only 20.1 percent of total TV viewing, while streaming—including YouTube—accounts for 44.8 percent. And Pew found that 86 percent of Americans say they get news online, with 56 percent “say[ing] they do so often.”

Given Carr’s track record, it’s certainly plausible he voted to amend the station ownership rule at least in part to benefit the president. In March, he threatened broadcasters that don’t report good news on the war in Iran.

But it’s also hard to imagine that broadcast TV, at this point in time, must still be regulated in ways that none of its other competitors are.

The post FCC Rule Change Would Allow More Broadcast Mergers, but It's Not Clear the FCC Has That Power. appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/XVfncaW
via IFTTT

Scott Galloway’s Bad Idea To Make Young Men Happier


Scott Galloway | New York Times

You have probably heard of Scott Galloway, a clinical professor of marketing at New York University. At some point over the course of the last several years, this academic and author became the mainstream media’s favorite all-purpose podcaster. As is the case with his similarly minded colleague, the smartphone fatalist Jonathan Haidt, a certain amount of trendy moral panicking comes with the territory; thus Galloway has built an impressive career offering bland (though often inoffensive) wisdom and also terrible policy advice, particularly with respect to tech addiction and the plight of young men.

He hosts a tech-phobic YouTube show with the equally paranoia-stricken Kara Swisher and also a politics-focused program called Raging Moderates with liberal Fox News icon Jessica Tarlov, an incredibly talented commentator who is neither raging nor moderate. If that wasn’t enough, he has his own YouTube show, too—and he makes frequent appearances on other people’s shows, like The View and Real Time with Bill Maher. In his most recent Maher segment, he railed against Big Tech’s contributions to gambling addiction among young men.

I’m hardly one to criticize a guy for spending too much time talking on the internet! But he hits the same notes over and over again: Big Tech is bad; screens are addictive; young men lack purpose, and it’s all the fault of the billionaires. Here was Galloway in conversation with The New York Times‘ Ross Douthat earlier this week:

“And I started doing some research on it, and I found a lot of data about the challenges facing young men—in this instance, the unrelenting foe of Big Tech, which every day is trying to figure out a million times a second a way to get you on a screen one more second, and the young, immature prefrontal cortices of men are especially vulnerable.

“Look, the biggest challenge facing my kids is addiction from godlike technology that’s tested a billion times a day, that has connected shareholder value to sequestering you from the key relationships in your life.”

It’s true that tech is associated with some negative consequences for some people under some circumstances. There are young men who spend too much time on their phones—although teen girls are worse affected by this than men—and there are young men who fall prey to sports betting and gamble away their parents’ life savings.

There are also many people of all ages who use their phones to connect with friends and family, to consume news, information, and entertainment, and to better themselves through fitness apps and stock trading apps and web design apps, and so on. Maybe they use their phones to listen to Galloway.

But worse than his diagnosis of this supposed national malady afflicting young men is his bonkers—though familiar—solution: mandatory national service for young people. This is the boomer liberal podcaster’s favorite fix for perceived social ills: Force much younger people to perform service that they themselves faced no obligation to do whatsoever.

“I think mandatory national service would be hugely beneficial for patriotism, for America, and for young men and women,” Galloway told Douthat. “A lot of young men, quite frankly, just lack purpose.”

Purpose-lacking young men are free to get jobs, join groups, and sign up for volunteer work. There are certainly people who would benefit from being nudged in that direction by friends, family members, and New York Times–caliber commentators. The idea that all young men should be forced, for some predetermined time period, to submit to national service is crazy, however. And it’s crazy, no matter how many times it’s proposed.

There are millions of young people who adjust to adulthood without significant problems, who are serving their fellow countrymen by finding employment and offering something of value in the marketplace, and who are starting families, etc. This is a free country—no one who is making something of themselves should be obligated to put their life on hold just because a 60-year-old business professor thinks it might be good for increased patriotism. Perhaps the commentators who are so enamored with this idea should practice what they preach, put their podcasts on pause for a year or two, and submit to national service themselves.

This Week on Free Media

I warn that Abdul El-Sayed’s victory in the Michigan Senate primary is a bad thing for the Democratic Party.

Worth Watching

I watched Avatar Aang: The Last Airbender. I’m a huge fan of the Airbender source material, namely the two Nickelodeon shows: Avatar: The Last Airbender and The Legend of Korra. The live-action show on Netflix is completely needless.

This new film is pretty good: The animation is terrific, and it’s fun to see Team Avatar back in action. The story is set in between the two shows, and I appreciate the filmmakers being careful with the canon. That said, I was displeased to learn that the original voice cast had been replaced for woke reasons: They decided they didn’t want white actors voicing Asian-inspired characters. I have no problem with the new voice actors for some of the characters: Aang, for instance, is no longer a little boy, and so finding him a voice actor that matches his new maturity level is perfectly fine. On the other hand, Zuko was an older teenager in the show, and it makes no sense to recast him—particularly when the original actor, Dante Basco, has a very distinctive voice. Steven Yeun is a talented actor, but he sounds absolutely nothing like Zuko. This is a real shame, and it hurt my appreciation for the film.

It’s also a bit weird, after all this discourse about how it’s totally OK for Lupita Nyong’o to portray Helen in The Odyssey—and I agree it’s OK; she was one of the only things I liked about the film!—for wokesters to turn around and insist that an Asian man has to voice Zuko.

The post Scott Galloway's Bad Idea To Make Young Men Happier appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/IVdXNJ0
via IFTTT

The GOP Is Warning About Socialism While Quietly Embracing It


Donald Trump stands in front of green buildings | Illustration: Midjourney

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) released their platform last month, and let’s give them credit for candor. They want public ownership of large corporations, the abolition of police and prisons, a defunded Pentagon, and open borders. Conservatives read that document and saw the future they have been warning American voters about: the government seizing the commanding heights of the economy and becoming owner rather than referee.

Their alarm is warranted. The socialist program would be a catastrophe. So, here’s an awkward question: Why is a Republican administration quietly doing the public ownership of businesses part on its own?

Last week, the Commerce Department announced that letters of intent have been signed to provide federal incentives to seven more companies under the CHIPS program. Each letter of intent is conditioned on the government taking an equity stake. By a Cato Institute count, that brings the federal corporate portfolio to roughly 30 firms.

A year ago, these deals looked like improvisation—one-offs stitched together under pressure with President Donald Trump’s fluid negotiating style. Now, the department announces them in batches. Federal ownership of private companies has become routine, and it is happening on the right even as members busily point fingers at the left for its socialism.

To be sure, this is not the abolition of private property that some in the DSA would love to see. But strip away the label and look at the mechanism. Socialism’s defining move is to put ownership and decision making in the same collective hands. A government equity stake does exactly that. Washington already regulates these firms, buys from them, and subsidizes them. Now, it owns pieces of them. Every lever it controls—tariffs, permits, contracts, the next tranche of subsidies—moves the value of its own holdings.

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, sees the implication of the government stake ownership more clearly than most Republicans do. “When government owns part or all of private companies,” he writes, “government is no longer just setting the rules—it becomes a player in the game and sets the rules to its own advantage and against the people.” Polis adds: “Socialism concentrates political and economic power in the same hands.” He is right, and it ought to sting.

Polis later asked during a Fox News segment where the Republicans denouncing this policy are. There are some, like Sens. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) and Rand Paul (R–Ky.), but it’s a fair question. The answer is probably that politicians condemn a thing only until their own side does it too. Still, the silence from most of the GOP on so fundamental an issue is truly baffling.

As Cato’s Tad DeHaven notes, “The seven nonbinding letters of intent would provide up to $874 million in CHIPS and Science Act research and development incentives.” Remember when most Republicans were against the CHIPS Act passed under former President Joe Biden? I do. And remember when they claimed to care about fiscal responsibility?

How about opposing ownership stakes simply because the right may not always be in charge? An executive branch that can hand out ownership at its discretion has acquired a permanent power, and such powers outlive the people who establish them. Picture a future Democratic president inheriting 30 companies’ worth of shareholder rights and the leverage that comes with these: board seats, emissions mandates, conditions bolted onto the next round of funding.

This is no paranoid fantasy. The Senate’s defense bill would give the Pentagon its own equity portfolio, which means Congress may write the administration’s practice into statute rather than kill it. The right is loading a gun and trusting that only its friends will hold it. LOL, as the young people say.

The economics of government ownership of company shares are worse than the politics. A government does not allocate capital to its highest-valued use; it allocates capital to its most politically valued use. A project that moves forward in a fair market does not need taxpayer money. A project that moves forward due only to government intervention is a loser that the taxpayer is buying.

Either way, the equity stake fixes nothing. It stacks a conflict of interest on top of a market-distorting subsidy. And once the Treasury owns a slice, a failing firm will always be ripe for a General Motors-style bailout.

Finally, you can spare me the national-security argument about needing the domestic chip capacity, steel, and rare-earth materials that these companies provide. Government ownership is not the instrument. Procurement contracts and long-term purchase agreements can secure supplies without making the Commerce secretary a shareholder.

The DSA at least tells Americans clearly what it wants. The danger on the right is quieter: a government acquiring the means of production one letter of intent at a time, and a political party acting as though socialism is something only the other side can do.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM

The post The GOP Is Warning About Socialism While Quietly Embracing It appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/TBVHXF1
via IFTTT

Francesca Hong’s Hateful Holidays, Burrito Prices, and Woke 1.0

Robby Soave and Christian Britschgi survey the latest fights inside American politics and culture, from Francesca Hong’s war on holidays to the Midwest’s emergence as a hub for democratic socialism. They argue that the war on “woke” has largely been won, while figures like Hasan Piker and Tucker Carlson continue attempting to scramble the political landscape. The episode also detours into burrito discourse, young men’s grievances, race relations in Western civilization, and the ethics of euthanasia. Finally, Christian offers his thoughts on The Staircase.

0:00—Hong’s war on holidays

1:37—Robby’s first Bane impression in weeks

6:00—The Midwest is becoming the breeding ground for democratic socialists.

11:03—We won the war on “woke.”

16:34—Piker is a liability, even for Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan

25:02—Tucker Carlson wants to create another third political party

30:34—The burrito discourse is crazy

44:06—Young men are systemically oppressed?

50:10—Race relations in Western civilization

1:03:40—Debate over euthanasia

1:14:15—Christian watched The Staircase 

The post Francesca Hong's Hateful Holidays, Burrito Prices, and Woke 1.0 appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/Y52u3vm
via IFTTT

A Viral Tweet Set Off a Discourse on $20 Burritos. Here’s the Truth About Inflation.


A burrito with a $20 price tag | Illustration: Midjourney

“A burrito shouldn’t cost $20.”

That’s what one Turning Point USA college student recently told the organization’s spokesman, Andrew Kolvet, who posted the comment on X in response to conservative pundit Matt Walsh’s complaints about rising grocery prices. Kolvet’s post garnered a massive response this week, sparking a debate among conservatives about the price of burritos and what the “America First” response should be.

Weighing in on the discourse, conservative commentator Ben Shapiro posted: “Current ‘common good conservative’ inflation messaging: $20 burritos are a human right but also every serious methodology for making them cheaper (i.e. kill the tariffs, break the unions, and deregulate the food supply chain) isn’t America First, so we need to complain a lot about how America is cooked and then surrender to Iran.”

Helpfully, Advancing American Freedom—a nonprofit launched by former Vice President Mike Pence—even created a “Burrito Index,” which found that a Chipotle steak burrito costs $14.10 in San Francisco and $13.50 in New York City. On the cheaper end, it costs $11.35 in Des Moines, Iowa, and $11.50 in Salt Lake City.

So why are burritos so expensive? 

“A price change over a given period of time is affected by two factors: the general inflation in the economy, which is raising all prices, and specific things that are happening in individual markets that affect the relative prices of those goods,” Ryan Bourne, an economist at the Cato Institute and author of The War on Prices, tells Reason. “If the question is why are burritos now so much more expensive in dollar terms than they were six years ago, overwhelmingly the reason for that is just the high inflation that we’ve lived through.”

Bourne notes that overall consumer prices have increased by around 28 percent over six years, so general inflation “accounts for the vast bulk of the increase in burrito prices.”

A myriad of other factors also contribute to the final price of a product, including tariffs, energy costs, minimum wage laws, and immigration crackdowns (which increase the cost of labor).

California provides a good test case for this. Earlier this year, Axios compared old and current menus at several popular Mexican restaurants in San Diego, and found increases ranging from around 19 percent to more than 70 percent. Harry’s Taco Club raised its price from $9.95 in 2020–2021 to $15.99 in 2026, while Lolita’s went from $7.75 in 2020 to $13.45 today. Restaurant owners attributed the increases to higher costs for labor, ingredients, rent, and insurance, with beef prices rising particularly sharply.

“There’s this kind of fragile public acceptance with prices that when you see a big burst of price increases, people instinctively seem to treat the previous price as something good, fair, and holy, and the new price after that big surge in demand as something unjust, unacceptable, and in need of redress,” says Bourne. “We still seem to be in that state of reacting to the inflation at the moment.”

Politicians also sounded off on the burrito debate, including Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R–Texas), who told people to “stop whining, get a job, eat Ramen.”

Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen took a similar line: “A burrito only costs $20 when you buy it on Door Dash because you’re too lazy to walk over to Chipotle or Taco Bell….When I graduated I lived on ramen noodles, had two roommates, and worked two jobs. I didn’t whine about affordability, I worked hard so I could one day afford a better life.”

It is, of course, true that fast food is more expensive than cooking yourself, but Bourne worries “that type of stuff kind of gets policymakers off the hook, because clearly what is annoying people is the change that they’ve seen in a short period of time.”

“If politicians really do actually believe that food should be more affordable, there’s plenty they could do. They could take off all the tariffs on food….They could get rid of the sugar program.”

If a social media post about the cost of a burrito can spark an internet firestorm, it is clear that Americans are weary of the cost of living. Politicians can lecture people to lower their expectations (which is sure to backfire at the ballot box), or they can stop pursuing the inflationary policies that make burritos, and everything else, more expensive.

The post A Viral Tweet Set Off a Discourse on $20 Burritos. Here's the Truth About Inflation. appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/suYhGUg
via IFTTT