The passing of the Rev. Jesse Jackson brings to my mind a meeting between him and Ronald Reagan during the 1980 presidential campaign. It might have been a lost opportunity.

During the Republican nominating convention of July 1980, candidate Reagan called for a huge military buildup to counter the Soviets. There was little in the Republican platform to appeal to black citizens, beyond enterprise zones, small business assistance, and civil rights enforcement.

Gov. James Rhodes of Ohio was convinced that a Reagan pledge to locate increased defense manufacturing in cities with large black populations would stimulate black support, especially that of Jackson. Through a black lawyer friend, Rhodes was able to get Jackson to agree to a private meeting with Reagan. On August 5, 1980, Reagan travelled to Jackson’s office on the south side of Chicago. With him were top staffer Mike Deaver, Dan Smith (one of Reagan’s few black staffers), and—as senior policy advisor for urban affairs—me.

Jackson sat behind his large desk, without an aide present. Reagan and Deaver sat side by side in front of the desk, with Smith sitting behind them. I stood behind Reagan. The meeting lasted maybe 40 minutes. Dan and I wisely kept our mouths shut.

In the previous week, a carload of white drunks had fired a shotgun into a line of black people waiting at a bus stop in Chattanooga. Jackson didn’t accuse Reagan of racism, but forcefully and repeatedly—three times—demanded that Reagan disavow unnamed “Reagan supporters” who were spewing anti-black slogans, lest the Reagan candidacy embolden the forces of racism.

Reagan earnestly replied—three times—that he “did not have a racist bone in my body” and deplored the Chattanooga event. He said that he had regularly condemned acts of racism and intolerance over many years, but that he was not prepared to accept personal responsibility for such acts in no way connected to his campaign.

Jackson was unwilling to accept that response, and the conversation moved uncomfortably forward. Jackson then handed Reagan a 10-point action agenda involving jobs, welfare, civil rights enforcement, and other items of interest to blacks.

Reagan took the sheet of paper from Jackson and started to address the 10 points one by one. Quickly, Deaver reached over and literally snatched the sheet out of Reagan’s hand. From my vantage point, I could see how startled Reagan was. Deaver, silent up to that point, addressed Jackson: “We’ll take this back, have our staff people look at it, and we’ll get back to you.” He was clearly concerned that Reagan might agree to some of those points that went beyond, or in opposition to, Reagan’s platform. At that point, the meeting rather uncomfortably ended.

Back in Reagan’s Arlington, Virginia, headquarters, I pressed my superiors to let me generate a response to each of the 10 points. Two or three days went by. Then I received a call from one of Jackson’s aides, who told me that the reverend was to speak to a strategy gathering the following Saturday and was expected to report on his meeting with Reagan and how many of the 10 points of the agenda Reagan had agreed to.

Alas, it fell to me to report that the Reagan staff, and Reagan himself, had not discussed any of the 10 points following that Chicago meeting, despite my persistent efforts to fulfill Reagan’s (actually Deaver’s) promise.

I don’t believe anyone in the Reagan campaign ever responded to Jackson, or engaged in any discussion with him. One wonders what opportunity was wasted.

A month later, Jackson told students at the University of Washington that “fascism is only four weeks away.”

The post When Jesse Jackson Met Ronald Reagan appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/qbR0sYa
via IFTTT

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Marty Makary recently stated that when it comes to drugs that currently require a prescription, “everything should be over the counter” (OTC) unless they are unsafe or need monitoring. There are several obvious candidates to start the process—but don’t expect pharmaceutical companies to ask Makary to reclassify them anytime soon. There’s a reason for that.

Evidence suggests prescription requirements don’t just restrict access—they also feed directly into the third-party payment system that drives drug prices upward. When a drug requires a prescription, it typically becomes eligible for insurance coverage. That shifts the transaction from a price-sensitive cash purchase to a subsidized one. Patients pay a copay, not the full price, and insurers often absorb the rest rather than provoke backlash. The predictable result is third-party inflation: When someone else pays most of the bill, prices rise.

You can see the contrast when drugs cross the prescription-to-OTC boundary. Once loratadine (Claritin) and omeprazole (Prilosec) moved over the counter, insurance coverage largely disappeared, patients paid cash, and prices fell sharply. The same dynamic helps explain why per-milligram prices for prescription ibuprofen and naproxen run far higher than their OTC equivalents, even at identical or dose-equivalent strengths. In the prescription market, prices emerge from negotiations among manufacturers, pharmacy benefit managers, and insurers—not cash competition.

Antihistamines are a case in point. For years, the FDA’s prescription regime perversely steered patients toward less safe allergy drugs—and manufacturers learned to game it. First-generation antihistamines like diphenhydramine (Benadryl) and chlorpheniramine (Chlor-Trimeton) have been sold OTC for decades despite well-documented risks: sedation comparable to legal intoxication, links to fatal aviation and automobile accidents, and rare but serious overdoses, especially in children. Meanwhile, the far safer, nonsedating, second-generation agents—loratadine (Claritin), cetirizine (Zyrtec), and fexofenadine (Allegra)—remained kept behind the prescription counter long after approval. In 2001, an FDA advisory panel recommended making them OTC, but the agency stalled. Schering-Plough, Claritin’s manufacturer, played both sides—arguing to the FDA that the drug should remain prescription-only in the United States while simultaneously touting its exceptional safety to European regulators to secure OTC sales abroad. The FDA didn’t move Claritin OTC until 2002, with Zyrtec and Allegra following years later—leaving Americans with easier access to older, riskier drugs while safer options were artificially restricted.

Consider the opioid overdose antidote naloxone, which has been used by doctors, nurses, and first responders since 1971. As early as 2016, the FDA started encouraging the makers of the nasal spray version, Narcan, to request reclassification as OTC. When the manufacturer, Emergent Biosolutions, showed no interest, the FDA made significant efforts, bending over backwards, to encourage their request. 

However, the FDA doesn’t need to wait for manufacturers—who often lack the incentive—to request an OTC switch. The agency can initiate reclassification on its own or at the request of any interested party, including states. If the agency still fails to act, Congress has the authority to mandate the switch. Unfortunately, the FDA often defers to pharmaceutical manufacturers. 

Finally, after indicating it might approve OTC access to a competing generic, the makers of Narcan submitted the request. Naloxone nasal spray became available over the counter in mid-2023. Sadly, the much cheaper generic injectable form still requires a prescription, even though people in Australia and Italy do not need one.

Or take oral contraceptives. Leading medical groups—from obstetrics-gynecologists to family physicians to the American Medical Association—have spent years urging the FDA to drop the prescription mandate. In other words, the professionals positioned as gatekeepers have been saying that the gatekeeping adds little value. Women in more than 100 countries have long had over-the-counter access, yet the FDA didn’t permit nonprescription sales in the United States until 2023—and even then, only for one product, a progestin-only pill, with use constraints that still limit practicality for many women.

Other candidates include albuterol asthma inhalers. The FDA permits patients to buy Primatene Mist without a prescription. This epinephrine-based product can stimulate the heart and blood vessels and raise blood pressure. However, the government requires a prescription for albuterol, which targets bronchial airways more specifically and produces fewer systemic effects. In many countries—including Australia, South Africa, and much of Latin America—patients can get albuterol directly from a pharmacy without needing a prescription.

Pre- and post-exposure HIV prophylaxis should also be included among the “low-hanging fruit” ripe for OTC status. Perhaps a bit higher on the tree are GLP-1s, which show emerging potential to manage compulsive behaviors and substance use.

Makary can’t depend on pharmaceutical companies to take the lead here. But there are reforms Congress can enact that would give patients over-the-counter access to many drugs without waiting for manufacturers to request it. One option, suggested by economist Sam Peltzman, is to invert the evidentiary standard. If large populations have used a medication for years and it has compiled a safety profile comparable to established OTC drugs like ibuprofen, it should presumptively qualify for nonprescription status. In that framework, the FDA would bear the responsibility of demonstrating why continued prescription control is necessary, rather than manufacturers having to seek permission to liberalize access.

Lawmakers can also enact international reciprocity—permitting OTC sales in the United States for medicines already available without prescriptions in trusted regulatory jurisdictions such as Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The FDA would still play a role; products could carry a disclosure noting the agency has not formally approved the switch. But it would strip the agency of its exclusive chokehold over these decisions, bringing competitive pressure to bear—pressure that would move drugs OTC faster and ground safety oversight in real-world use.

If Makary wants to expand over-the-counter access, he’ll have to confront not just bureaucracy but regulatory capture. A system that allows drug makers to profit from restricted access will never liberalize on its own—and patients will continue to bear the cost.

The post The FDA Talks Over-the-Counter Freedom. Big Pharma Profits From Keeping It Restricted. appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/OTgaiA6
via IFTTT

As he announced a broad set of new tariffs targeting imports from around the world, President Donald Trump declared his intention to reduce America’s trade deficit.

“Chronic trade deficits are no longer merely an economic problem,” Trump said in April during a speech from the White House’s Rose Garden. “They’re a national emergency that threatens our security and our very way of life.”

If that’s true, then the first year of Trump’s tariff regime has heightened the threat.

New data released Thursday by the Census Bureau show that America’s trade deficit—the gap between the total value of all imports and all exports—hit a record high in 2025.

America imported $3.44 trillion of goods during 2025, the Census report shows. That’s a $143 billion increase over 2024, despite the higher taxes applied to many of those imports last year. Meanwhile, exports increased by $123.5 billion to a total of $2.2 trillion.

That leaves a trade deficit of $1.24 trillion for the year—a 2.1 percent increase over 2024 and the largest total ever reported.

Thankfully, trade deficits are neither an economic problem nor a national security one. In reality, a trade deficit is little more than an accounting gimmick, and America imports more than it exports because it is a very wealthy country that can afford to buy a lot of goods from the rest of the world.

That’s a good thing. Indeed, the only time in recent history that the trade deficit declined was during the so-called “Great Recession” following the 2008 mortgage crisis. That’s not a period of history most people would be eager to repeat, even if it meant the gap between imports and exports was falling.

After misdiagnosing a problem where there isn’t one, Trump also applied the wrong policy choices to achieve his goal.

Tariffs don’t reduce trade deficits. That’s something that plenty of economists could have told the White House, if only the administration were willing to listen.

“When tariffs reduce imports, they also reduce the supply of dollars that pay for imports,” warned Joseph Gagnon, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, weeks before Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariff announcement. “The result is that imports do not shrink as much as would be expected from the tariff alone, and exports shrink by an equal amount, leaving the deficit unchanged.”

Or Trump could have looked at the trade deficit stats from his first term in office, when he hiked various tariffs. Despite that, America’s trade deficit climbed from about $481 billion in 2016 to $679 billion in 2020.

Like all policies, Trump’s tariffs ought to be evaluated by their consequences—rather than by their intentions or the peculiar preferences of the president’s economic advisors. After the first year, the conclusion is inevitable: Trump promised a lower trade deficit, and the opposite has occurred.

The post Trump Said Tariffs Would Reduce the Trade Deficit. Instead, It Hit a Record High in 2025. appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/wgoM9Uz
via IFTTT

The vast majority of people charged with human trafficking in this country are U.S. citizens, according to the Department of Justice. In 2023, U.S. citizens accounted for 96 percent of people charged with a federal human trafficking offense. Additionally, 1.7 percent of those charged were non-citizens who were in the country legally.

Just 2.3 percent—26 people—were undocumented immigrants.

This runs somewhat counter to Trump administration narratives about undocumented immigrants. It routinely suggests that they’re a major source of human trafficking and that Immigration and Customs Enforcement has been rounding up hordes of human traffickers in its deportation stings.

Most of the people charged with federal human trafficking offenses in 2023—92 percent—were men and 63 percent were white. Seventeen percent were black and 16 percent were Hispanic.

This data comes from a new report, “Human Trafficking Data Collection Activities, 2025,” on arrests, prosecutions, and convictions for human trafficking offenses. It comes from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), which is required to compile this information annually.

BJS defines human trafficking offenses broadly—though the category does not, as many imagine, include smuggling people across U.S. borders. It includes “peonage, slavery, forced labor, and sex trafficking,” along with “sexual exploitation and other abuse of children” and “transportation for illegal sexual activity and related crimes.”

The category with the fewest number of charges was peonage, slavery, forced labor, and sex trafficking, with 180 people charged across all four offenses. Just six of these people were undocumented.

Lest anyone think that this is just a matter of the Biden administration being soft on migrant crime, we can look to a previous BJS report and see similar statistics from President Donald Trump’s first term. “Of the 1,169 defendants charged with any…human trafficking offenses in fiscal year 2020,” 94.6 percent were U.S. citizens and just 3.2 percent were undocumented immigrants, according to a BJS data collection report from 2022.

In the latest report, BJS admits that it has essentially no idea about the overall prevalence of human trafficking here. “BJS’s current collections are unable to produce estimates for the prevalence of human trafficking in the United States,” the report states. The best it can offer up is statistics based on various crime reporting databases.

Unsurprisingly, the most recent data show increases in referrals for prosecution, prosecutions, and convictions as attention around human trafficking skyrocketed in the 2010s.

“A total of 2,329 persons were referred to U.S. attorneys for human trafficking offenses in fiscal year 2023, a 23% increase from 1,893 in 2013,” the latest report states. “The number of persons prosecuted for human trafficking increased by 73% from 2013 to 2023 (from 1,030 to 1,782).” And 1,008 people were convicted in human trafficking cases in 2023.

The post 96 Percent of People Charged With Human Trafficking Are U.S. Citizens appeared first on Reason.com.

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

One of the most prevalent propagators of the idea that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked underage girls to rich and powerful men was unable to best a critic in open debate, and instead resorted to pure ad hominem attack. But due to a poorly-timed mishap, the internet has convinced itself that this attack went unanswered, and was justified.

I am speaking, of course, about an unfortunate occurrence during an exchange between journalists Michael Tracey and Tara Palmeri on Piers Morgan Uncensored. The guests on Morgan’s show are usually remote, and in this case, Tracey had trouble hearing what Palmeri was saying; as a result, he was not able to immediately answer a question from her about whether any Epstein associates were paying Tracey to undermine the Epstein narrative. Palmeri summarized what happened thusly on X:

“Michael Tracey, who calls himself a journalist, has been smearing Jeffrey Epstein survivors—and sometimes me,” she wrote. “I can take it. But I asked him one simple question: Are you being paid by someone powerful to attack sex-crime victims? Yes or no. His audio mysteriously died. Weird.”

Moments later, Tracey did answer the question, asserting that he was not being paid by any particular associate of Epstein, and that he makes money the same way most other independent journalists make money: from subscribers on Substack and various other platforms. Yet Palmeri was perfectly happy to insinuate on social media that Tracey had not responded to this (frankly quite ridiculous) question of hers. Various high-profile figures subsequently retweeted Palmeri’s insinuation, and are working to codify the false idea that Tracey is paid opposition.

Amazing. None of these people bothered to watch 30 seconds further, where the instant I could actually hear @tarapalmeri's ludicrous question, I immediately and unequivocally replied that OF COURSE I AM NOT BEING PAID by any Epstein co-conspirators! What utter defamatory garbage! pic.twitter.com/RPoFSKlfgc

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) February 18, 2026

This is very telling, and quite representative of how the Epstein obsessives operate: Poke holes in their claims, point out that they have no evidence of what they are stating, or invoke very basic principles relating to norms of due process, and they attack you as an enabler of pedophiles, a tool of Israel, or some other nefarious thing. They resort to ad hominem because they cannot defend their central thesis, which has collapsed under scrutiny.

It Doesn’t Add Up

Let’s back up a bit. Tracey, if you haven’t guessed, is an independent-minded journalist whose contrarian views frequently put him in conflict with the mainstream media and the Democratic establishment. For example, he was previously a major debunker of Russiagate, the theory that then-candidate Donald Trump had colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton. He is not, however, a supporter of Trump, or really a conservative of any kind. He has appeared frequently on Glenn Greenwald’s show, and has guest-hosted it when Greenwald was unavailable.

Lately, Tracey’s work has singularly focused on tearing down what he has described as the mythology of Jeffrey Epstein: the notion that Epstein was the head of a global cabal of pedophiles who raped children with impunity. This idea was blithely asserted as fact by the many, many commentators who have obsessively demanded the release of the Epstein files for years—but now that we do have millions of pages of documents relating to Epstein, we know that there is shockingly little evidence in support of it.

Cards on the table: I have largely come around to Tracey’s way of thinking about all this. When I first learned about Epstein, around the time of his arrest and subsequent death in prison, I did not really question the sensational things I heard about him from other commentators who knew more than I did. (I never bought the idea that his death was something other than a suicide, though.) These things included the following: Epstein had procured underage girls for his elite friends; Epstein was an asset for U.S. or perhaps Israeli intelligence; the authorities had overlooked Epstein’s crimes and given him a light sentence. I supported the release of the Epstein files so that we could learn more about the government’s failure to obtain justice for Epstein’s victims.

I now know better. Epstein himself was a serial abuser of underage girls (teenagers, not children), but there is no evidence he procured girls for other men to engage in illegal sex. There is no evidence he worked for an intelligence agency. And while it’s perfectly possible to criticize the government’s handling of Epstein’s initial prosecution in 2008, one of the reasons that he was charged with prostitution rather than with sex-trafficking is that the evidence against him was relatively weak. And it was weak because many of the purported victims did not see themselves as such, and declined to testify against him.

But after the Epstein estate began paying out settlements, some of their tunes changed. Today, there are many Epstein victims who say that they were sex-trafficked by other rich and powerful men. Some of their stories are notoriously dicey. The most high-profile victim of Epstein, Virginia Giuffre, suffered from mental illness and ended up withdrawing her accusation against legal commentator Alan Dershowitz. (She later committed suicide.)

Those are just the facts. Epstein is still a very bad human being and a sex criminal. Many powerful people remained in contact with him even after he went to prison for sleeping with underage girls, and some even remained in close contact with him right up until the end of his life. The public is free to form negative impressions of Steve Bannon, Noam Chomsky, or Bill Gates because of this.

But the central idea of the Epstein narrative—which prompted Congress to take the unprecedented step of releasing millions of pages of uncorroborated investigative documents—was that people other than Epstein were also guilty of very serious sex crimes and had gotten away with it. We needed to release the files in order to learn which powerful men had taken advantage of Epstein’s sex-trafficking services.

It has not worked out like that. The millions of pages released three weeks ago do not provide any evidence that Epstein pimped out underage girls to other elites, let alone that he was running a cabal of pedophiles. Moreover, efforts to identify names of alleged perpetrators have gone completely awry. Rep. Ro Khanna (D–Calif.), for instance, inadvertently smeared four random men who had appeared in a police lineup as criminal associates of Epstein. (They had nothing to do with Epstein.)

This is why I’ve become extremely worried about the release of the Epstein files, as innocent people are now being smeared as complicit in Epstein’s crimes. And I am hardly alone in this:

Great list, but what should we call ourselves? Epstein rationalists, perhaps.https://t.co/3bSwnOtp8U pic.twitter.com/vctcKcChzU

— Robby Soave (@robbysoave) February 18, 2026

But there are still a great many commentators for whom it is treated as a proven fact that various global elites remained friendly with Epstein because they were complicit in his sex crimes. When you point out that there’s no proof of this, then they say, well, what are you hiding?

This is becoming the textbook definition of a witch hunt, and it is extremely telling that the propagators of the Epstein narrative are willing to mislead their readers, viewers, and listeners about a critic’s source of income.

---

This Week on Free Media

We haven’t filmed yet this week, so check out Freed Up, my new podcast with Christian Britschgi.

---

Worth Watching

I would like to recommend my new favorite X account: Candace Owens Trying to Read (Parody).

Anecdote pic.twitter.com/HYsIsYpMXm

— Candace Owens Trying to Read (Parody) (@candaceReading1) February 18, 2026

 

 

The post The Epstein Hoax Obsessives Keep Lying About Their Critics appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/Ce2UqlM
via IFTTT

Looming war with Iran. The storm clouds of war are growing increasingly thick over the Middle East, as the U.S. military masses a huge amount of planes and ships for what looks like an increasingly likely attack on Iran.

Both The New York Times and CNN reported yesterday that the U.S. would be ready to hit Iran by the weekend, but President Donald Trump hasn’t made a final decision on whether to go through with a strike or not.

Dozens of refueling tankers have been deployed to the region, as have 50 fighter jets and two aircraft carrier strike groups, reports the Times.

During the first Trump administration, the U.S. periodically deployed additional forces to the region as a show of force against Iran without ever attacking the country. Military analysts report that this time appears different.

Defense news site The War Zone notes that most of the U.S.’ few battle-ready E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) planes, which are used to control airspace in combat situations, are either staging in Europe or already in the Middle East.

Not good, Bob.

A situation to monitor or nothing happens? For the time being, the White House is still talking like it wants to keep talking.

Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner met with Iranians in Switzerland, Reason‘s Matthew Petti noted yesterday. Iranian officials were quick to say those talks went well.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt also said that “the president has always been very clear, though, with respect to Iran or any country around the world, diplomacy is always his first option, and Iran would be very wise to make a deal.”

Nevertheless, Petti notes that Secretary of State Marco Rubio dismissed the idea that diplomacy was feasible with the Iranian regime in his remarks at the Munich Security Conference on Monday.

Similar to the recent intervention in Venezuela that led to the capture of dictator Nicolás Maduro, the White House isn’t even bothering to consult Congress about a war with Iran or even to make a propagandistic case to the American people that a new Middle Eastern conflict is a good idea.

Doing that would be a little too small-r Republican for this administration.

More worrisome still is the fact that Trump administration officials are increasingly talking like pre-Iraq War Bush administration officials.

Petti again:

Two officials told Reuters that they are planning for weeks of large-scale warfare. Trump told reporters last week that regime change in Iran “would be the best thing that could happen.” Kushner believes that the Middle East “is a liquid and the ability to reshape is unlimited,” as he wrote in September 2024.

That rhetoric is exactly how the Bush administration and its supporters sounded on the eve of the Iraq War. Not to worry, though. The Trump administration knows that it’s better than the last people who got struck down for their hubris.

“I empathize with Americans who are exhausted after 25 years of foreign entanglements in the Middle East,” Vance told NBC News in his June 2025 interview. “I understand the concern, but the difference is that back then we had dumb presidents and now we have a president who actually knows how to accomplish America’s national security objectives.”

Who knows. Maybe this time, everything will work out just fine.

---

Scenes from Redwood City: My reporting trip out here in the San Francisco Bay Area brought me to Redwood City. And while my reason for being there was not specifically to see the San Mateo County History Museum, it was a nice secondary bonus.

When the first Britschgis immigrated from Switzerland to America, we largely settled down in the San Mateo County area, where we prospered as dairy farmers. My great-great-uncle Carl Britschgi was briefly mayor of Redwood City in the 1950s and then represented the area in the California Assembly from 1956 to 1970.

My museum trip was partly motivated by a hope of seeing his name or picture somewhere, but I had no such luck. Indeed, the Swiss community did not even make the museum’s immigration section.

The closest thing to a Swiss I could find in the whole place was this man from the 1880s dressed up as a pocket watch. Chalk it up to this country’s persistent Alpinophobia.

A fun thing I did learn at the museum was that the 1964 Republican National Convention, in which the libertarian-leaning Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater was selected as the party’s presidential candidate, was held at the famous Cow Palace venue in nearby Daly City.

A little subsequent research pulled up an extended interview my great-great-uncle gave about his time in politics, in which he included an anecdote about seeing Goldwater’s nomination.

As a libertarian, I have a real fondness for Barry Goldwater. As a liberal Republican, Carl Britschgi couldn’t stand him. Seeing the rude behavior of Goldwater supporters at the convention led my relative to disavow any support for his party’s candidate.

This led to a minor scandal right before the election when the elder Britschgi told a group of swing voters to vote Democratic. Perhaps that contributed to Goldwater’s historic defeat at the hands of Lyndon Johnson.

---

QUICK LINKS

• The future of media is parlayed on when the next Matt Yglesias piece defending the Austro-Hungarian empire is published and what Richard Hanania’s next ideological conversion will be.

Polymarket ???? Substack

We are excited to announce our exclusive partnership with Substack.

Starting today Substack authors can natively integrate data from the world's largest prediction market.

Journalism is better when it’s backed by live markets. pic.twitter.com/kxosFe8Zqt

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) February 18, 2026

• Per The Guardian‘s Jeremy Barr, the Federal Communications Commission has launched an enforcement action into ABC’s The View over whether the show violated the commission’s equal time rule for political candidates.

News: FCC chairman Brendan Carr confirmed that the agency has opened an enforcement action into ABC's The View over a potential violation of the equal time act… (it had been reported, citing anonymous sources)

— Jeremy Barr (@jeremymbarr) February 18, 2026

• Eight skiers are dead in Lake Tahoe following an avalanche.
• Washington’s proposed “millionaire’s tax” would be economic suicide, argues Jared Dillian for Reason.
• Speaking of economic suicide, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) rallies support for California’s proposed wealth tax.

The post War With Iran? appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/tDrSMv2
via IFTTT

Today, The Dispatch published my new article, “In Defense of Sanctuary Cities” (gift link). Here is an excerpt:

Sanctuary cities and states have been a major focus of political conflict in the second Trump administration, perhaps even more than in the first. These jurisdictions refuse or severely limit assistance to federal efforts to detain and deport suspected illegal immigrants. Most only provide such assistance in cases involving undocumented migrants who have committed serious crimes. Regardless of the politics, the 10th Amendment protects sanctuary jurisdictions from compulsion by the federal government. And their policies are also well justified on moral and pragmatic grounds. This is particularly true at a time when many federal immigration enforcement efforts are cruel and illegal….

The 10th Amendment states that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In a series of decisions primarily supported by conservative justices, the Supreme Court has held that the 10th Amendment bars federal “commandeering” of state and local government personnel and resources, including forcing them to help enforce federal law against private parties….

The constitutional basis for protecting sanctuary jurisdictions against executive-created spending conditions is also strong. As numerous court decisions have held, the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power of the purse. Thus, the executive cannot attach its own conditions to federal grants to the states, as Trump has repeatedly tried to do. In addition, even Congress’ power to spend for the “general welfare” is not unlimited, and it cannot use this authority to completely gut state autonomy…

Conservatives tempted to jettison these constitutional rules in order to stick it to liberal immigration sanctuaries would do well to remember that the same principles also protect red-state “gun sanctuaries,” such as Missouri and Montana, which deny state assistance for enforcement of federal gun control laws. The two types of sanctuary jurisdictions stand or fall together….

In addition to being constitutionally protected, sanctuary policies are also right and just. Sanctuary jurisdictions have rightly concluded that police resources are better used to combat violent and property crime instead of aiding in deportation efforts….. Undocumented migrants actually have much lower crime rates than native-born citizens, and most of those detained, especially in recent months, actually have no criminal records at all. Local and state participation in deportation efforts also makes it more difficult to combat crime by poisoning relations between law enforcement agencies and minority communities.

The cruel and illegal nature of much of the federal deportation effort provides additional justification for denying it state and local assistance. In more than 4,400 immigration cases over the last year, courts have ruled that the second Trump administration illegally detained people. The true number of illegal detentions is likely much greater….

The post My New Dispatch Article, "In Defense of Sanctuary Cities" appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/fnQcb7e
via IFTTT

The Harlan Institute is currently hosting the Fourteenth Annual Virtual Supreme Court Competition. This competition offers teams of two high school students the opportunity to research cutting-edge constitutional law, write persuasive appellate briefs, argue against other students through video chats, and try to persuade a panel of esteemed attorneys during oral argument that their side is correct. This year, in honor of America’s 250th Anniversary, the competition will focus on the case of Patriots v. Loyalists.

Fourteen teams of high school students presented oral arguments in the semifinal round. The teams were superb. Truly, these high school students could compete in any law school moot court competition. My sincere thanks two Elizabeth Steeves (Yale) and Shemaiah DeJorge (Georgetown) for helping to judge the rounds.

The Round of 8 will be held the week of March 9, 2026. The championship round will be held at the National Archives in April.

Semifinal Match #1

Team #24081

Semifinal Match #2

Team #24266

Semifinal Match #3

Team #24346

Semifinal Match #4

Team #24347

Semifinal Match #5

Team #24348

Semifinal Match #6

Team #24354

Semifinal Match #7

Team #24355

Semifinal Match #8

Team #24357

Semifinal Match #9

Team #24358

Semifinal Match #10

Team #24359

Semifinal Match #11

Team #24360

Semifinal Match #12

Team #24627

Semifinal Match #13

Team #24628

Semifinal Match #14

Team #24629

The post Harlan Virtual Supreme Court Semifinalists appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/GJ4ekIB
via IFTTT

An excerpt from Magistrate Judge Patricia Dodge’s long Report and Recommendation last week in Deltondo v. School Dist. of Pittsburgh (W.D. Pa.):

During 2020-2021, Deltondo was a Kindergarten teacher at Banksville Elementary School in the District…. On August 9, 2020, Deltondo shared on her personal Facebook and Instagram accounts a post originated by another person. The original post (the “Privilege Post”) stated as follows:

What is Privilege? …

Privilege is wearing $200 sneakers when you’ve never had a job. Privilege is wearing $300 Beats headphones while living on public assistance.

Privilege is having a Smartphone with a Data plan which you receive no bill for. Privilege is living in public subsidized housing where you don’t have a water bill, where rising property taxes and rents and energy costs have absolutely no effect on the amount of food you can put on your table.

Privilege is the ability to go march against, and protest against anything that triggers you, without worrying about calling out of work and the consequences that accompany such behavior.

Privilege is having as many children as you want, regardless of your employment status, and be able to send them off to daycare or school you don’t pay for.

Privilege is sending your kids to school early for the before-school programs and breakfast, and then keeping them there for the afterschool program … paid for by the people who DO HAVE TO DEAL WITH RISING TAXES AND COSTS!

…you know, us so-called ‘PRIVILEGED’ the ones who pay while you TAKE TAKE TAKE!”

When she reposted the Privilege Post on her Facebook account, Deltondo included the statement “awesome read!” accompanied by a “celebration hands emoji.” On her Instagram account, she included the statement, “Someone actually wrote it down and spelled it out for everyone.”

Deltondo’s social media accounts, which did not identify her as a teacher or the identity of her employer, were restricted such that only friends could see her posts. The posts at issue were made during the summer and not pursuant to any of her job duties. She testified that she re-posted the Privilege Post because she liked the social and political commentary it contained, especially as it related to the welfare state in general. She further testified that she also privately connected it to her daughter. She does not believe that the Privilege Post targets any one race or people, but instead offers a critique of irresponsible spending on well-known luxury items (which she has bought for her own children) by those on public assistance.

Deltondo knew that she had Facebook friends who were Banksville Elementary employees and believes one of these employees likely saw her post, took a screenshot of it, and shared it with others. She also knew that some District students received reduced cost or free lunches. Deltondo notes, however, that the Privilege Post does not criticize providing free lunches but satirizes people who use the program but then demonize the individuals who fund such programs as “privileged.”

Deltondo was eventually charged with misconduct, and defendants recommended that she be dismissed; she resigned, and then sued, claiming the school district’s actions violated her First Amendment rights. The court allowed her claim to go forward, reasoning in part:

In Pickering and later cases, the Supreme Court applied a three-part test to determine whether a public employee’s speech is protected. As discussed by the Third Circuit: “first, the employee must speak as a citizen, not as an employee … second, the speech must involve a matter of public concern …; and third, the government must lack an ‘adequate justification’ for treating the employee differently than the general public based on its needs as an employer under the Pickering balancing test.”

The court concluded that the first two elements were satisfied, and had this to say about the third element, which essentially asks whether the disruption of the speech to the government employee’s operation outweighs the value of the speech:

As the Court of Appeals has noted on the issue of disruption:

While the test for disruption varies depending upon the nature of the speech, the factors a court typically considers include whether the speech “impairs discipline by superiors or harmony among co-workers, has a detrimental impact on close working relationships for which personal loyalty and confidence are necessary, or impedes the performance of the speaker’s duties or interferes with the regular operation of the enterprise.”

In every case, “Some disruption is almost certainly inevitable; the point is that Pickering is truly a balancing test.” …

The facts here differ significantly from those of the cases cited by Defendants [in which a firing was held to be justified under Pickering]. First, Deltondo did not make overtly derogatory comments about the Kindergarten students in her classes. Certainly, she endorsed the views in the post she reposted, but given the entire circumstances, the record does not reflect sufficient evidence to demonstrate that actual disruption occurred. Defendants have not established that Deltondo’s actions impaired discipline or employee harmony, negatively impacted working relationships, impeded Deltondo’s performance of her duties or significantly interfered with the District’s regular operations. The Privilege Post was made during summer vacation.

While there was some public reaction, Defendants have not claimed that there was an outcry by multiple parents or school employees. Principal Fadick received no direct complaints and the only support Defendants have of complaints made to the District consists of declarations from principals of other schools claiming that a few complaints were made to them. But even if these complaints are acknowledged, they do not demonstrate disruption of school operations. In fact, the complaints came primarily not from concerned parents or District employees but from George Allen [a community activist -EV] and his followers. The comments increased after the District chose to issue a public statement…. [T]he concerns of a few members of the community cannot be used to outweigh Deltondo’s free speech interests.

{Assuming for purposes of this opinion the admissibility of declarations submitted by Defendants, Declarant Sanders Woods [a principal at another school] states that she heard from “two teachers and a parent” but does not identify the speakers. Woods also states that she had the “impression that the teachers and parent contacted me based on concerns that the language in Ms. Deltondo’s post could be interpreted as her having a negative bias against children of minority backgrounds” but does not state that they actually expressed such concerns. Declarant McNamara [a principal at yet another school] states that she was contacted by her friend and District teacher Becky Gaertner but does not say that Gaertner raised a complaint about the Privilege Post (and Deltondo asserts that Gaertner was not identified as a person who possesses knowledge about this matter).}

Moreover, Principal Fadick testified that any “disruption” was caused by the District’s suspension of Deltondo, which required the hiring of last-minute replacements for her. This was the result of the District’s actions, not of Deltondo’s speech…. [E]ven if evidence of some disruption is presented at trial, a reasonable jury could conclude that Deltondo’s speech would have made only a minimal disruption if the District had not issued the District Statement.

Nor has the District established that there was any significant possibility of disruption. As discussed, the post was made during summer vacation and there is no conclusive evidence that disruption to the District generally or to Deltondo’s class or the school in which she taught was likely to occur. Thus, given the interests of Deltondo in expressing her speech and the limited evidence of any actual or possible disruption, the Pickering balancing test weighs in favor of Deltondo….

The court also noted:

Deltondo also asserts that the District’s response demonstrates that it was engaging in viewpoint discrimination, disfavoring her speech because it found the Privilege Post contrary to its pro-BLM position. Defendants contend that Deltondo’s argument is unsupported, but {Superintendent Hamlet testified that Defendants viewed the Privilege Post as a criticism of the Black Lives Matter (“BLM”) movement. He did not think such criticism was valid and believed criticism of BLM was enough in itself to justify punishing a teacher.} As courts have held, “viewpoint-based government regulations on speech are nearly always presumptively suspect.” …

Alfred Joseph Fluehr (Francis Alexander LLC) represents plaintiff.

The post Teacher's First Amendment Claim Related to Sharing "What Is Privilege?" Post Can Go Forward appeared first on Reason.com.

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

2/19/1942: President Roosevelt issues Executive Order 9066. The Supreme Court would consider the constitutionality of this Executive Order in Korematsu v. U.S. (1944).

 

The post Today in Supreme Court History: February 19, 1942 appeared first on Reason.com.

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