These programs appear as generous social policies—and in some cases socialism—but each is a textbook example of collectivism. Each policy takes away the individual’s choice and interaction with the market in exchange for centralized control. Rent control removes the voluntary exchange between landlords and tenants. Free buses remove user fees in favor of taxpayer funding and government allocation. Universal pre-K takes decisions away from families and places them in the hands of bureaucrats. In every one of these cases, Mamdani’s “warmth” means replacing decentralized market knowledge with a centrally planned government. But the problem is the government doesn’t know how markets work and in fact distorts the signals.

Rent control is not a new experiment in New York. The city has been under some form of rent control or stabilization continuously since the 1940s and is still legally in a housing emergency, with a rental vacancy rate around 1.4 percent—far below the 5 percent threshold the law defines as healthy. It ultimately leads to housing shortages, deteriorating units, and an increase in vacant properties as the cost of upkeep becomes a net negative for landlords. Thomas Sowell notes that under rent control, “there are four times as many abandoned units in New York as there are homeless people,” because owners simply walk away when regulated rents cannot cover upkeep. It’s cheaper to do nothing—anything else puts them out of business. The only way for landlords to operate profitably is to convert properties to condos, which limits rental supply further. Economists across the spectrum—from Paul Krugman to Thomas Sowell—agree that rent control reduces rental supply and worsens shortages. A price ceiling always distorts market signals.

Free buses don’t work either. When Denver tried it in the 1970s, overcrowding forced abandonment of the program within two years. Austin experienced similar results in 1989—vandalism and assaults on drivers increased, and regular riders sought alternatives because it wasn’t safe. New York has its own recent experiment with free buses. Ridership increased, but there was no reduction in car use, and the city lost millions in revenue. Without market signals, you don’t receive the information needed to determine if the service is working. The result is overuse and lost revenue.

Universal pre-K has moral appeal, but the numbers don’t justify the costs. Nationwide, the price tag would run into the hundreds of billions. The randomized control trial of Tennessee’s statewide pre-K program, led by Dale Farran and colleagues at Vanderbilt, found that children offered a slot had lower test scores, more discipline problems, and higher special-education placement by sixth grade than similar children who did not attend. States with universal programs lack adequate funding or quality controls, providing a mediocre product that crowds out private options. What central planning always misses is that it doesn’t allow local knowledge to force change and meet people’s actual needs.

The funding path is always the same: tax the rich. Those revenues are highly volatile and political. When they inevitably fall short, governments cut services or raise taxes elsewhere. All three examples ignore price signals, overlook trade-offs, and make promises they can’t keep. What you get is shortages, decreased quality, and fiscal trouble. Good intentions are noble, but economic reality is our best metric for deciding how we plan—or rather, how we move away from central planning.

There is an alternative in the form of individualism. We constantly turn to socialist policies to solve our problems, but a market-based approach will solve many of the problems we face. Let the builders build. Minneapolis became less strict with zoning rules and let private builders add more housing units, which led to rent growth remaining far below nearby cities. By removing the barriers and controls, the market receives the signal it needs to meet growing demand. Again we see price signals and local knowledge leading the way.

We can achieve childcare without a state monopoly. Several states have targeted subsidies like the Child Care and Development Block Grant. Help is given to low-income families, who buy care from private providers, not the government. The choice belongs to the parents, and the providers must compete for their business. Families get to pick what meets their needs versus a one-size-fits-all model—a key theme as to why individualism isn’t rigid. In fact, it’s quite flexible in this model, whereas the one-size-fits-all model is rigid. The proof is in the approach and results.

Cities like San Diego contract their bus routes to private operators through performance-based deals where fares are charged—no free rides. When San Diego privatized 44 percent of its bus service, the city achieved roughly 33 percent in savings, according to City Journal. A 2020 Empire Center report using Federal Transit Administration data found that competitively contracted bus services in San Diego operated at 30-37 percent lower cost than the public agency. Competitive contracting maintains quality and decreases waste. Operators compete and performance is king—political favor is never a factor.

The pattern across all three: allow individuals to maintain the power of choice, and market and price signals let markets respond to change and innovate. Government has a place to set rules, but it should never micromanage the process. If history is our guide, Mamdani’s quote seems rooted in rhetoric over sound policy. He misses the mark on his adjectives for collectivism and individualism—in fact, he has placed them inversely. The power he wants to establish goes directly to the government to dictate people’s lives and choices. To call that warm is misleading at best. The systems he wants to create are unforgivingly rigid, forcing individuals into perpetual dependence on the government and stripping away the choices they need to thrive in the market and, more importantly, in their own lives. True warmth comes from a government that leaves people with the power of choice and allows them to prosper. Freedom, choice, building, and thriving are warm. Anything that steps on those should be avoided with the utmost rigidity.

What is in it? A 3.8% raise for U.S. troops, locking in a minimum of 76,000 troops in Europe, with actual deployments often exceeding 100,000. The bill provides a guarantee of $400 million a year for weapons to Ukraine over the next two years and $600 million a year to Israel for programs tied to their defense and the Iron Dome. This NDAA is just one piece—Washington spends tens of billions more annually arming, training, and subsidizing foreign militaries worldwide.

America became a superpower prior to 1945, and we weren’t policing or bankrolling the world—just smart, effective strategy. We were handed the blueprints on a silver platter by our founders, namely Washington and Jefferson: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” We followed this practice for over a century, and it led to immense power. We did not get involved with Europe’s power struggles in WWI and WWII until it was on our terms. There were no security guarantees that forced us into the fighting. The Monroe Doctrine kept the focus on holding foreign powers at bay from our hemisphere. We amassed a powerful navy, secured the sea lanes, and blocked empires from the Americas. When Japan finally forced our hand, they knew they had “awoken the sleeping giant”—a grave mistake.

Not only did we grow in power on a military scale, we became the world’s largest economy in the 1800s through non-interventionism and open trade with everyone. Our economic power became a security asset. Sure, the postwar alliances and Bretton Woods setup helped establish a mid-century economic high point, but they also marked the peak of U.S. dominance: our share of world GDP hit about 40% around 1960 and has been sliding ever since, down to the mid-20s today. The permanent-intervention model didn't lock in American dominance. While Washington globalized security guarantees and built an empire of bases, its relative weight in the world economy was essentially cut in half, even as the costs and risks of playing global policeman kept rising. America did benefit from vast oceans and friendly neighbors, and we took advantage of it. We didn’t need the massive alliance network and countless foreign aid to maintain power, so why did we abandon that model?

We moved away from a working model strictly due to mission creep. Our foreign policy changed because a new round of leadership came into power in the form of central planners, bureaucrats, and contractors. The narrative changed after WWII—the thinking was oceans can’t protect us anymore, NATO was needed, permanent bases and alliances were the only way to beat the Soviet Union. It sounded good on paper, but we need to look at results, not theory. Ultimately, this led to a security state that never went away. NATO was supposed to be a temporary alliance, and when the mission was completed in 1991 and the Cold War ended, the budget actually grew, the bases stayed, and the missions multiplied at what seems like a geometric level. The system can’t sustain itself, and without threats the Pentagon could never justify its budget. Defense contractors cannot sell weapons without wars, and politicians need to look strong from a global leadership perspective. This is public choice theory in action—concentrated benefits with a few insiders growing wealthy and powerful, and 330 million Americans are left holding the bag, not counting future generations who will suffer. Every crisis helps build the argument, whether it be China, terrorism, cybersecurity—fighting them “over there” always points to expansion, and we are not safer, just poorer.

Supporters of this bill have some strong points to address. They believe a robust troop presence in Europe acts as a deterrent, that it’s insurance to prevent large-scale war—spend billions now, save trillions later. Despite these reasonable provisions, the net impact of placing our troops in Europe in perpetuity has not made for stronger alliances—it’s created nothing shy of total dependency as we go deeper into debt. Our allies are disincentivized to strengthen, and the byproduct is they are weaker. Surely we’d be better off with allies who could truly form a coalition versus this current coalition of one.

The old model of the Monroe Doctrine wasn’t naive or outdated—it was designed with the intent of staying out of endless wars, protecting against special interests, and preventing empire building. This wasn’t policy we outgrew; this was policy we abandoned intentionally.

It is never too late to fix bad policy, and like other bad policy, we can’t just rip the rug out from the current system. A phased exit away from our "world's policeman" approach would allow us to set definitive timelines to end automatic defense guarantees, withdraw troops from Europe and other rich allies, and stop routine foreign military aid. At the same time, we shift to a strong, focused defense of U.S. territory, sea lanes, and critical infrastructure at home—the approach that had worked before. We would cease spending billions defending rich countries who could easily afford their own national defense. Discontinue subsidizing Europe’s security while they get healthcare off our backs and we get debt? Let allies protect themselves. We can go back to free trade with everyone, fight for no one unless directly threatened, and put that money towards our own citizens for better protection or even our own healthcare. It’s not too late. We need leadership in Washington that understands the difference between defending America and defending the world.

But the celebration overlooks a critical problem. It boils down to 12 people with all of the control, unable to reach consensus on the price of money in a $29 trillion economy. What the Fed overlooks is the nature of the market itself. People decide their time preferences individually—whether to save or spend, consume now or invest for later. When rates are set below what a free market would naturally create, the Fed sends false signals to the entire economy. They misdirect investment, create artificial booms, and then blame “market panic” when reality catches up.

History offers a cautionary tale—and an alternative model. It appears we have put a lot of misplaced trust in the Fed, and it’s understandable as to why. We are taught that the Fed ultimately saved us from the Great Depression and corrected the Crash of 1929, however, a deeper look into history tells a different story. The 1920s tell an interesting story, a tale of two Washington approaches. Let’s look at what caused the crash and what we could have done differently. After the sharp 1920–21 deflation, the Fed kept its policy rate relatively low and bought a lot of securities, which pumped reserves into the banking system and drove rapid growth in bank credit even though consumer prices looked stable. But with productivity rising, “stable prices” actually meant money was too loose: the Fed pushed interest rates below the level consistent with actual savings indicators, so long‑term projects in construction, heavy industry, and stocks exploded in a way that looked like genuine prosperity but was really malinvestment.

Banks were funding projects that only made sense in a world of fake cheap money. When the Fed finally tightened in 1928-29 to stop speculation and protect gold reserves, the whole thing came crashing down. All those investments that looked brilliant at 3 percent rates suddenly looked like a major mistake at 6 percent. Asset prices tanked. Projects got scrapped. Banks that had lent against inflated values were suddenly underwater. From this view, tight money in 1928–29 didn’t cause the Depression so much as reveal and unwind the decade-long, Fed-fueled credit boom.

This approach contrasted drastically from the beginning of the decade. After World War I, the U.S. experienced a brutal but short-lived deflationary period where prices fell sharply and output contracted. President Harding resisted calls for aggressive stimulus and instead cut spending, reduced debt, and allowed wages and prices to adjust on their own. Within 24 months, output and employment rebounded and the economy entered what many describe as an exceptionally strong expansion through the 1920s. This model should have been the blueprint for all future cases. Accept the correction, avoid the “too big to fail” model, and let prices and rates realign as the market would naturally dictate. It worked.

What came next is where the narrative was retold. Hoover came into the Presidency touted by historians as a “do nothing” President, a laissez-faire advocate. This couldn’t be further from the truth. He supported a heavy interventionist strategy, pushing a cartel-style agenda to stop prices and wages from crashing. He pressured businesses to inflate wages, signed off on a massive tax increase in 1932, expanded public works, backed farm support programs, and created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC)—a federal agency that lent billions to failing banks and businesses, the clear predecessor to today’s “too big to fail” bailouts. This is hardly laissez-faire. Hoover effectively blocked the natural correction from taking place. Fixed prices misallocated resources and the Smoot-Hawley tariffs had devastating results: world trade plummeted by 66% between 1929 and 1934, unemployment exploded from 3% in 1929 to 25% by 1933, markets collapsed, and millions of jobs vanished. These protectionist policies compounded the crisis, hurting everyone from farmers to businesses and worsening economic distress at an international level.

Then FDR came in and doubled down on everything Hoover started. Bank holidays, abandoning the gold standard, price-fixing codes through the National Recovery Administration (NRA)—FDR even had farmers destroy crops and livestock to raise prices while people were starving. The New Deal was permanent experimentation, throwing everything at the wall to see what stuck. Both presidents were activists who intervened heavily. The myth of Hoover doing nothing is just that—a myth. And their policies likely made the Depression last longer than it should have.

We know the history, and we’d be wise not to repeat the mistakes of the past. But at the moment we’re following several plays from the 1920-1930s playbook. We’re turning on the money printer, keeping rates artificially low, making large asset purchases and fueling a boom with flat prices. When things tighten, expect to see a crash similar to previous ones. The Fed lacks the crystal ball to see into the future, yet they are once again attempting to manage growth, jobs and inflation—again, a 12-person committee making the decision, not us. This will inevitably lead to malinvestment with money flowing to projects built on nothing real.

Concurrently, we are in the middle of a trade war with threatened 60% tariffs on China and renewed steel and aluminum hikes—conjuring the ghost of Smoot-Hawley. Billions in subsidies flow through the CHIPS and Inflation Reduction Acts, picking winners just as Hoover and FDR propped up favored sectors. Hoover and FDR responded with price controls, public works, and wage supports which prevented fast adjustment and dragged the Depression out for over a decade. We’re repeating the pattern. Fiscal stimulus on top of structural deficits. A Fed that never lets the correction happen, alongside a government that engages in inflationary practices. We’ve provided easy money and created a protectionist environment fueled by intervention. We learned this lesson 90 years ago and chose to ignore it. The pendulum will swing back, and the bill will come due—probably as stalled growth, renewed inflation, or a correction worse than it needs to be. When a new Fed chair takes over in 2026, the real question isn’t whether they’ll be dovish or hawkish. It’s whether we keep trusting 12 people to set the price of money in a $29 trillion economy. History says we shouldn’t.

We need to approach what we are facing head on. Russia already has military advisors, arms dealers, and defense contractors in Venezuela repairing Maduro’s systems. China is receiving discounted oil as a top buyer and lender to the regime. They’ve secured energy supplies and are positioned for infrastructure expansion in Latin America. Iran already maintains ties in the region with potential Hezbollah connections. Combined, they’ve built a “counter-Western axis” that’s actively running arms smuggling networks, cyber operations, and a shadow fleet evading sanctions. Venezuela has the largest known oil reserves in the world, and they’re flowing to our enemies at a discount while US firms remain locked out.

This isn’t a future threat—it’s happening now, 1,500 miles from Florida. We’re already dealing with the consequences: surges in migration, crime from groups like Tren de Aragua’s, regional instability threatening Guyana’s oil-rich territories where ExxonMobil has major investments. The question isn’t whether Russia, China, and Iran could expand their military or infrastructure—it’s whether we’ll act before it’s too late. Trump is correct, our previous lack of action has given up strategic ground that could be permanently lost without course correcting. The deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford provides a powerful deterrent while the Coast Guard executes the seizures.

The narco-terrorism angle is real, and it provides important legal and moral arguments for these operations. Maduro’s regime has been proven to be corrupt. High-ranking government officials and military personnel are complicit in drug trafficking networks that have given rise to the fentanyl and immigration crises. This has allowed the administration to act without approval from Congress, and it resonates with Americans who see the damage of cartel operations.

The narco case is legitimate, but it isn’t the full story. Our approach to drug enforcement is reactive—we’re responding to crimes already committed. The geopolitical actions are preventive—we’re stopping a hostile alliance from making a second home for itself in our hemisphere before it’s no longer an option. That’s a harder argument to make because the threat feels abstract until a presence like Russia’s is seen directly. Leadership is leading with an easier narrative, but we need to start making the case for what really matters.

This is power politics at play, and we should stop looking the other way. China doesn’t apologize for its actions in the South China Sea. Russia doesn’t ask for permission before projecting force in neighboring countries. Why should America act differently, especially when it comes to defense? We’ve spent decades inactive while hostile powers built logistics networks in our backyard. That approach hasn’t brought us safety and prosperity—it’s opened the door to exploitation.

This operation is different from previous interventions. No troops on the ground. No regime changes. No nation-building exercises that add to our debt and cost lives. We’re using our existing naval forces to target a direct threat: a shadow fleet that funnels billions to Revolutionary Guards, Russian military operations, and Chinese strategic reserves. When compared to endless Middle East deployments—this is what a smart show of power actually looks like. Every seized tanker is one less revenue stream for regimes actively working against our interests. It’s minimum force, maximum impact, and it costs American taxpayers little beyond what we’re already spending on naval forces.

This is about whether we’re willing to confront a hostile alliance that’s building power in our hemisphere while we still have the opportunity. The narco-terrorism narrative will continue to provide legal justification for seizures, and it should. But if American leadership won’t make the geopolitical case publicly, we risk backing ourselves into a corner. China securing permanent energy access through Venezuela, Russia establishing military infrastructure 1,500 miles from our coast, Iran extending its reach into Latin America—this isn’t hypothetical. These are real, and the clock is ticking. Trump’s blockade is the right move. Now leadership has an obligation to explain why it really matters.

Biden’s administration kicked off the process of changing marijuana to a Schedule III classification. This change would make marijuana more accessible from a medical perspective, but he never got it across the finish line. Trump’s administration is considering getting Biden’s plan back in motion, but the plan was and is a half measure. Recent reports suggest Trump’s administration is actively considering accelerating the Schedule III move, potentially completing what Biden started—but even this doesn’t go far enough. Trump, who initially took more of a states’ rights stance, now seems aligned with Biden’s approach that doesn’t actually expand personal freedom.

The move would effectively reclassify marijuana from Schedule I, which treats it the same way as heroin, down to Schedule III. This would represent a massive shift in how the federal government views cannabis by acknowledging the medical benefits and lower abuse potential, but it misses the point. The real debate here is about personal choice and freedom.

Acknowledging the Benefits

We do need to acknowledge some benefits of the proposed change. Medical research will grow with the change, and tax burdens will be lifted off of legal dispensaries. Right now, Section 280E of the tax code forces cannabis businesses to pay effective tax rates of 70% or higher because they can’t deduct ordinary business expenses like rent, utilities, or employee wages. Rescheduling would remove this burden, and allow these companies to operate like any other business. Prices could drop for consumers, though only for medical consumers.

The Real Issue: Personal Freedom

Trump has said he’s “100% in favor” of medical use, but remains skeptical of recreational use, even pointing to IQ concerns. What both Biden and Trump miss is that individuals’ bodies should not be governed by the government. It’s not up to someone’s arbitrary opinion on whether something is good or bad for you. Of course chronic use wouldn’t be in an individual’s best interest, and the research does support that. But eating McDonald’s every day isn’t good for you either, and nobody’s monitoring what you eat.

Opponents point to DUIs as a risk, but driving impaired would still be punishable—the same as with alcohol. Here’s the key principle: government coercion only makes sense to protect others. You can have freedom of choice and still face punishment when you endanger someone else.

Countering Opponents’ Fears

Opponents claim legalization would cause a health panic—that it’s addictive, kills motivation, causes accidents, and ultimately destroys families, education, especially in poorer neighborhoods. They breathe life into the old gateway drug myth: crime would spike, trafficking would surge, violence would follow. Conservatives correctly state that marijuana can undermine rational thinking and responsibility. Others have more outlandish claims that restricting personal freedom actually creates more freedom for non-users, who won’t become victims of bad policy.

The evidence disproves these claims. Research on Colorado and Washington found no long-term increases in violent or property crime after legalization. Police ended up solving significantly more violent and property crimes once legalization freed up resources that were previously wasted on marijuana enforcement. Legal states have pulled in billions in tax revenue for schools and public services. Colorado has collected over $3 billion since legalization, with the first $40 million annually going into public school construction.

The gateway drug fear? Youth marijuana use actually declined in states that legalized. In Colorado, teen use dropped from 22% in 2011 to 12.8% in 2023. Washington saw similar decreases. There has not been a strong statistical finding that Marijuana leads to “harder” drugs. The predicted disasters were exaggerated.

Why Prohibition Fails

Here’s what we need to decide: is personal autonomy more important than government control over what you put in your body? If they can decide what’s good or bad for you, that’s a blueprint for oppression in other areas of life. We own our bodies. The government doesn’t own us.

Prohibition—as we once saw with alcohol—created violence, arrests, and imprisonment. That’s not public safety. It hits the poorest communities the most, which ironically is the very concern opponents claim to have. The real outcome leads to broken families and generational involvement in the criminal justice system. Even if we kept the classification as is, there are significant downsides. Black markets appear and grow, accompanied by gang violence and police corruption. The drug doesn’t disappear—prohibition just creates the crime opponents fear.

A Better Path: Full Legalization

During Trump’s first term, he favored state control over federal action. This didn’t resolve anything at the federal level and actually pits fed against state, leaving everything murky. If Trump signs off on rescheduling, that’s a step forward, but only a step.

The argument isn’t about health effects. The argument is whether you truly have control over your own body. Rescheduling has clear benefits—it eliminates the Section 280E tax burden and gives cannabis businesses access to banking and medical research—but it doesn’t address personal freedom. Full legalization would go much further. It would allow for interstate commerce, create thousands of jobs, and let the industry operate like any other sector. We’d be better off pursuing approaches that grow both personal and economic freedom. Here, we could achieve both. I’m not advocating for or against using marijuana. I’m saying you should have autonomy over your own body. With momentum building—even under Trump—now is the time to push past rescheduling toward complete freedom for adults.

I have some concerns, but let’s look at some benefits. The DOJ is one agency of government we actually need, so my concerns are not extreme.

Trump created the “AI Litigation Task Force” with one simple job: sue states over AI laws that micromanage the way models speak, rank, and decide. This hones in on rules that would force a company to change truthful outputs to avoid “algorithmic discrimination.”

Commerce now has 90 days to name and remove the oppressive AI state laws that conflict with the national framework. Prime example: Colorado’s AI Act is in the firing line.

This is good for business and removing what could lead to monopoly power. The compliance tax can only be covered by companies like Google and Meta. A lighter federal rule saves the little guy and keeps them competitive - no more legal privilege or government protection. Trump is removing regulatory barriers. And that’s what these state regulations are - they’re not helping us maintain a sense of safety in the market. This move pushes away from central planning in the industry.

A method that simply removed state and federal power would have been preferred. It’s a bit of a catch-22: in order to decentralize, we need to use centralized power. It has an oxymoronic vibe to it and can come across as hypocrisy in libertarian circles. However, for now it may be best to focus on the greater good versus idealism. The risk of leaning on the feds to enforce is a double-edged sword in this case. Congress still holds the power to pass a strict AI ban, or stricter-by-state standards, and there would be no recourse for the states that had a business practice that would give them a higher individual economic score. So this is a good first step, and we should go all the way in terms of deregulation.

DC has finally made a move that proactively shrinks regulatory risks and threats, but at the same time, they hold the keys to oppressive oversight. We’re getting closer to the right path, and if we remove the feds’ ability to regulate, it could be a doorway into true economic freedom for America. Our Freedom Index has dropped over the years and isn’t even in the top 10. Moves like this could set the tone for a new blueprint. If successful at the federal deregulation level, why not take it all the way?

Both tariffs and bailouts work together to harm the consumer and ultimately reward a very small group with taxpayer funds as a direct result of bad policy.

Headlines are advocating the “$12B lifeline” for farmers as a win. It’s not. Let’s look at a couple of issues. It’s not free for starters, the cash comes from coercive taxes to compensate an important sector for losses caused by tariff policy itself. A simplified way to look at tariffs is to see them as a tax on imports, higher prices for consumers because of higher costs for businesses that rely on the impacted supply chains. When other countries retaliate, our farmers lose export markets and their incomes drop.

You might be pressed to say, “What if the tariffs on our exports were too high anyway? Wouldn’t farmers be screwed, and shouldn’t we retaliate?”

Bad policy abroad doesn’t justify bad policy at home. When foreign governments tax their people with tariffs, responding with our own tariffs and farm bailouts just spreads the economic damage. Americans should benefit from cheaper foreign goods while farmers shift toward markets not controlled by foreign bureaucrats.

My guidance to Trump: let’s admit tariffs are hurting us vs. looking to solve it with subsidies. We won’t get hit twice with higher prices, and we won’t get hit with additions to the deficit or inflation. This is inevitable if we go down this path and do not course correct. It’s almost a triple tax in a sense.

There is a common myth out there that we’ve been led to believe we need balanced trade, but a trade deficit is nothing to be concerned about. Trade deficits lead to investment in America in our favor, and less investment abroad as a balance, this is the ultimate sign of strength. If some other country wants to shoot themselves in the foot with bad tariff policy on US products with increased taxes on imports, let their citizens become destitute over bad policy while our farmers have a price umbrella. The extra goods need to go somewhere when secondary countries run dry, and this has happened in action before and in many cases is still happening to our advantage.

The right move isn’t retaliation, it’s a move towards unilateral free trade. Cut every US tariff to zero tomorrow. In due time, we’d have cheaper inputs, lower prices at checkout, and manufacturers scrambling to build factories here to access our market tariff-free.

Let’s cut tariffs, have our consumers paying less, our producers actually competing, and farmers selling at a global level vs. lobbying for a bailout. End subsidies for politically connected firms, and better competitors will most certainly emerge. If you want a trifecta of quality, choice, and efficiency, that’s how it’s done. Right now the government is putting out fires with gasoline. The real challenge we face is the problems we are creating from bad policy.

Let’s stop creating the crisis and let free markets do their thing.

Should Trump ditch the tariffs and subsidies, or is there something I’m not seeing?

What followed was depressingly predictable. Empty prayers, checked boxes, the requisite expressions of concern for families who will now spend Thanksgiving and every holiday after with empty chairs. But that wasn’t what took center stage. Before the story had even fully unfolded, Republicans and Democrats were already racing to pin this on Biden or Trump, on one administration’s program or another’s approval. The Guardsmen faded into the background. The blame game came front and center.

What both parties miss is that this goes beyond any single policy or president. It traces back decades - to our interventionist approach, to twenty years in Afghanistan, to the chaos of withdrawal that put everyone in that moment on that street. But even that only explains how we got here. It doesn’t assign blame.

In the end, the blame belongs to one person: Rahmanullah Lakanwal.

To understand how we got here, we have to look back at Afghanistan. What started as a focused mission to strike Al-Qaeda and the Taliban veered into something else entirely: nation-building. We spent trillions trying to turn Afghanistan into a centralized state, propping up corrupt partners who enriched themselves on our dollar while becoming entirely dependent on American support. Without us, collapse was inevitable.

And collapse came. We had locked ourselves into a mistake, spending coerced tax dollars to centrally plan another country’s political system - a mission that had nothing to do with protecting America. The withdrawal was always coming. It was just a matter of when we finally admitted the original mission was gone and pulled the ripcord.

Here’s what the collapse looked like: Kabul fell on August 15, 2021. The US had already abandoned Bagram, leaving Hamid Karzai International Airport as the only way out - a bottleneck in hostile territory. Massive crowds formed. The Taliban circled the perimeter. Then came the ISIS-K suicide bombing at Abbey Gate, killing 13 US troops and 170 Afghans while personnel scrambled to move people to safety.

In two weeks, the US airlifted over 120,000 people - including tens of thousands of Afghans, roughly 70,000 to 80,000 under the main program - in an emergency evacuation that looked nothing like standard visa-driven resettlement. Speed and optics drove everything. Oversight reports later found that criteria for “at-risk Afghans” were inconsistently defined, and the data needed for proper vetting was often incomplete.

Here’s how he got here. Rahmanullah Lakanwal spent years working with US forces through CIA-linked formations like the “Zero Unit” or Kandahar Strike Force. After the Taliban takeover, he evacuated through Operation Allies Welcome - the program designed for those who had worked with US military and intelligence. On September 8, 2021, he entered on humanitarian parole.

He settled in Washington State with his family from 2021 to 2023. Neighbors described him positively - a soldier who fought alongside Americans and suffered trauma from war. He subsequently pursued permanent status in the US, with his application approved months before the shooting.

Nothing in the system flagged him as a threat. He had credentials. He had worked alongside our military. The real danger may have come from rescuing partner forces quickly rather than slow, confidence-building vetting.

Here’s the honest assessment: once he was here, both Biden and Trump had reason to believe he wouldn’t be a threat. But there shouldn’t have been a threat to begin with. We never should’ve been knee-deep in that mess the way we were - something we can point to Bush as the source and Obama as a continuation of the same failed policy, followed by Biden’s botched withdrawal. It’s tough to pin this squarely on Trump when Bush, Obama, and Biden had already fumbled the ball for two decades.

If this moment is going to mean anything, it should force a rethink of the policies that created him and brought him here in the first place.

This was a culmination of many variables - decades of intervention, a botched withdrawal, rushed vetting, and failures across multiple administrations. But instead of looking at the full picture and learning from it, we’re watching another race to assign blame. Republicans point at Biden. Democrats point at Trump. Neither side wants to confront the deeper problem: we never should’ve been knee-deep in that mess the way we were.

We can’t blame all Muslims. We can’t cleanly blame one party. The shooter is responsible for what he did. But if we want to prevent the next tragedy, the lesson isn’t about which administration to punish - it’s about the consequences of intervention itself.

Learn from this. Correct the policy. Stop the blame game.

Strong views, significant disputes among voting members, and now, more cuts aren’t guaranteed. This swing has created tens of billions of dollars of uncertainty for businesses and has added hundreds of basis points to mortgage quotes in the blink of an eye. It boils down to 12 people with all of the control, unable to reach a consensus. This is a significant flaw exposed by letting a central committee set the price of money in a $29 trillion economy.

It played out poorly. According to Federal Reserve minutes, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) managed a 10-2 vote, deciding to cut by 25 basis points. One governor pushed for 50, another for 0, so they found a compromise of sorts. Then, on November 19, we see “strongly different views” repeated ad nauseam. Chair Powell made clear the move is “not a foregone conclusion — far from it.”

What was the result? Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) FedWatch odds took a nose-dive from 90% to 33% in just 14 days. Thirty-year mortgage rates jumped from 6.4% to 6.8% and back in a single week. Companies began imposing hiring freezes. Families walked from housing contracts. “Data-dependent” is not supposed to look like this.

The idea of the Federal Reserve was sold back in 1913 as a protective insurance measure. Since that time, the dollar has lost 96.8% of its buying power—a 1913 dollar now buys about three pennies. The issue is that we still face panics and catastrophes—bigger in scale: 1929, 2008, 2020—each followed by trillions printed for banks, while we got the bill.

We hear a common counterclaim that pushes us to continue the current path—”without the Fed, we’d have 1907-style runs every decade”—let’s examine that. Every pre-Fed crisis was caused by laws banning nationwide branch banking and forcing an inelastic currency, essentially overregulation and red tape. Canada had no central bank, allowed nationwide branching, and had essentially zero panics from 1870 to 1914. Same era, same gold standard, zero central planning—and zero crises. The problem was never unchecked banking; it was damaging regulation. We just traded one bad rule for 12 people with a money printer who are never held accountable.

What can we do to course correct? A few straightforward fixes voters could demand from Congress. Force the Fed to follow a clear rule—like the Taylor Rule, a straightforward formula that links interest rates to inflation and economic slack—or Nominal Gross Domestic Product targeting, linking policy to steady, predictable growth in total spending. Simplify and remove the dual mandate. The Fed has an impossible job to establish both stable prices and maximum employment at the same time. Pick price stability and let employment follow—trying to manipulate both is how we got into this mess. Repeal the remaining banking restrictions and let private money compete. If Bitcoin, gold-backed dollars, or anything else holds value better than what the Fed prints, let people decide.

We should demand the audit, the rule, and competition. We are not following sound policy when we allow twelve people to gamble with our mortgages, our savings, and our futures. We’ve been going down the wrong path for 112 years running. If we’re not ready to abolish the Fed, it’s past time to reform it.

Canada privatized its system in 1996. Nav Canada now delivers better safety records, greater efficiency, more innovation, and lower costs — all without taxpayer funding.

The UK, Australia, Germany, and more than 60 other countries have followed the same path with similar results.

It’s past time the United States caught up.

Read the full piece here:
https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/5604250-shutdown-lesson-we-should-privatize-air-traffic-control-just-like-canada-did/

Grateful to The Hill for running it, and I’d genuinely love to hear from anyone who’s worked in aviation policy, the FAA, airlines, or the Hill. Thoughts?

But this is not what we are talking about; welfare and socialism are over-conflated, likely due to “social program” phrasing. We need to start examining who owns our factories and supply chains; then we will see that neither party is forthright in their fight against socialism.

Ludwig von Mises had an excellent command and understanding of these terms, and spelled it out a century ago: Capitalism is characterized by private actors owning and controlling production, responding to real consumer demand, and utilizing entrepreneurial judgment. Socialism isn’t a safety net or a handout—it’s what happens when Government steps in and owns the means of production directly, forcing political calculation to replace real market signals. Communism would be the ultimate goal of socialism—property collectively owned, private enterprise abolished, and the state eventually fading away into a promised utopia. Welfare programs differ and can be described as a redistribution mechanism added to a capitalist system, rather than a Government takeover. Politicians knowingly blur these lines, and they’re counting on voters not knowing the difference.

Here’s where the hypocrisy really hits home. While each party points and decries socialism when they’re out of power, both sides have supported and planned the Government buying up pieces of key industries the moment it’s convenient, often under a guise of protection or as a savior. Obama’s administration seized control during the auto bailouts, making every taxpayer a partial owner of General Motors and Chrysler for years—oversight, board seats, the works. It was billed as saving the economy, but make no bones about it: it was real-deal Government ownership of private business, with Washington in charge until the stocks were sold off.

This wasn’t a one-off. Trump’s White House emphasized industrial policy and “national security” rhetoric, laying the groundwork for the semiconductor boom—his blueprint got the ball rolling with executive pushes for domestic chips and minerals. That set the stage for the CHIPS Act, which poured billions into chipmakers with built-in hooks for equity stakes if needed. Behind the scenes, his team negotiated deals with rare earth and critical mineral producers, signaling the Pentagon’s readiness to invest directly and blunt China’s leverage.

When Biden took office, he accelerated it all, expanding CHIPS grants for semiconductors and ramping up steel and rare-earth support. Then in 2025, the federal Government bought a 9.9% stake in Intel, the actual company itself, and locked in warrants for even more if Intel spins off its foundry business. This included Government profit-sharing and new powers to manage key decisions. The ‘anti-socialists’ in the White House wrote checks for huge stakes in MP Materials—making DoD the largest shareholder—and Lithium Americas, both critical mineral suppliers, with deals that included veto rights and boardroom power for the Government. US Steel? As a condition of Trump’s approval (flipping Biden’s block), the Government now holds a coveted ‘golden share,’ giving it a permanent veto over offshoring, closures, or any move that might make alarming headlines or threaten union jobs.

None of this is tied to welfare. It’s about actual Government ownership and management—at times temporary, and others permanent—of the physical assets and companies that keep the country running. This is worse than subsidies and “strategic partnerships”; this is the Government stepping in with our money and taking absolute control.

The Democrats’ sweep in last Tuesday’s elections isn’t just a matter of political momentum. It’s a long-overdue chance to confront Washington’s culture of corruption. Over the decades, Nancy Pelosi has become a symbol of everything wrong with Congress: self-serving, profiting from stocks, and relentlessly hoarding power. Now that Pelosi will not seek reelection (BBC profile), the party is being given a rare chance to prove it values integrity over political privilege. Her departure is confirmed and the past few weeks have shown Americans are done with legacy politicians.

Enrichment, Insider Trading, and Public Distrust

Pelosi’s record is tainted by controversy, particularly regarding alleged insider trading and stock market windfalls—scandals so obvious that her financial gains have outpaced hedge funds and triggered watchdog investigations (prime profits coverage). Her husband, Paul Pelosi’s, uncanny timing on trades has often coincided with primary legislation or pending regulatory action, raising critical questions about privileged access. Public outrage over these suspicious trades led to the STOCK Act, but Congress never truly enforced, cementing distrust and reaffirming the need for a complete ban on congressional stock trading. Every year, politicians like Pelosi work around disclosure laws, and faith in Congress continues to erode.

Policy Legacy: Progress Stalled by Self‑Interest

Let’s be honest: Pelosi’s leadership, while delivering landmark bills like the ACA, has always been about maintaining her grip on power and protecting party insiders, rather than pursuing real reform (analysis of her legacy). Her handling of the Trump impeachments only served to showcase partisanship and political calculation. Search the legislative record and you’ll find watered-down reforms, side deals with lobbyists, and the perpetual sidelining of transparency and ethics. Her transactional style has left bipartisan skepticism and a legacy built not on progress, but on self-interest (Jacobin critique).

Obstruction, Division, and Generational Stagnation

Pelosi’s iron-fisted rule has alienated rising progressives, especially figures like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and “The Squad”, creating fractures that threaten Democratic renewal. Even her occasional alliance with younger Democrats masks a broader frustration with the party’s refusal to modernize, embrace new priorities, or remove entrenched leaders. Unless Congress breaks free from Pelosi’s brand of politics—favoring elite continuity over genuine representation—future generations will face the same stagnation.

A Moment for Reform and Accountability

Pelosi’s 2026 retirement will close the book on her 38-year run (biographical record), but that’s just the beginning. The only way to restore public trust is for Congress to enact comprehensive ethics reform, starting with a total ban on stock trading for lawmakers and their spouses (as recommended in the PELOSI Act report). Delay only deepens cynicism and rewards those who profit from public office.

Pelosi’s legacy demonstrates the extent to which Congress will go to protect the privileges of its leaders. Until lawmakers act decisively, voters have every reason to expect more corruption, more secrecy, and more betrayal. Washington cannot recover until it abandons the corrupt model Pelosi championed.

Do you agree Congress should ban stock trading for lawmakers? Speak out in the comments and share this article. Let’s demand public service that finally puts Americans first.

Let’s consider Maria Rodriguez, a former picker at an Amazon warehouse in Texas, who became a robotics technician after completing Amazon’s mechatronics apprenticeship.[3] “I was worried at first,” she told reporters. “But now I’m fixing the robots instead of competing with them -and earning more.” Her story is quite common and reflects a historical pattern in which innovation often replaces old roles while creating new and usually better ones.​

Automation Anxiety and the Luddite Fallacy

The fear that automation is destined to destroy jobs is not a new concern. The term “Luddite fallacy,” derived from 19th-century English textile workers who smashed machines out of fear for their livelihoods, is a classic representation of the mistake of assuming that technology always means less work.[4] History is clear: while automation will likely, if not most certainly, displace workers, it also reduces production costs, lowers prices, stimulates demand, and creates new industries requiring skills we couldn’t even conceive of or potentially comprehend in the previous era.[5]​

Lessons From the Past: Job Loss Is Temporary

When the Industrial Revolution replaced hand weavers and farm laborers with machines, it led to the emergence of expansive new industries, logistics, manufacturing, retail, and services, that took on the displaced workers and spread prosperity.[6] The introduction of ATMs did not eliminate banking jobs, but instead transformed them, freeing tellers to focus on relationship-building tasks and supporting industry expansion.[7] Experience tells us again and again that automation changes employment, but rarely, if ever, eliminates it.​

Acknowledging Real Transition Challenges

It is still essential to acknowledge that transitions are painful. The disruption falls hardest on those without easy access to retraining or in regions most heavily impacted by automation. Amazon emphasizes that its current wave of automation focuses on avoiding future hiring needs, rather than directly laying off employees.[8] This is important; it’s not a change that can be made with the snap of a finger for all current jobs. Instead, it places a burden primarily on future job seekers and entry-level workers, not existing staff.

It is worth noting that 14,000 jobs have already been cut this year,[9] indicating that technological change can and will at times have a real human cost for those caught in its wake.​

Critics say ‘this time is different’ because AI can perform not just physical tasks, but also complex thinking.[10] They worry about wages remaining stagnant and the gap between the rich and the poor widening. These are legitimate concerns, and they highlight the need for thoughtful policies to help people transition into new, high-quality jobs.

A Path Forward

History makes it clear that the outcome of automation waves depends as much on being prepared as it does on the technology itself. Amazon’s Mechatronics and Robotics Apprenticeship is part of its $700 million Upskilling 2025 initiative, which provides training to employees for high-demand, higher-earning technical roles through a combination of paid classroom instruction and on-the-job experience.[3] They are not leaving their employees in the lurch. Amazon also pledged an additional $2.5 billion to expand tech-focused upskilling programs, preparing not only its own employees but also millions of students and job seekers for the market.​

Public policy could extend and amplify these efforts; however, as noted above, companies are already taking steps in this direction.[11] Some key considerations include the need for community colleges and technical schools to secure funding for providing affordable retraining, as well as the use of portable benefits and wage insurance to help displaced workers.[12] Collaboration among companies and educators is essential and will require active, ongoing investment.

Automation As A Force

We can alter our views on automation from a threat to an opportunity. If managed correctly, work becomes safer and more rewarding. New jobs are already emerging in robotics, AI oversight, and logistics planning. Amazon’s experience echoes that of past technological revolutions: where we face an initial disruption, followed by a wave of new industries, new jobs, and renewed prosperity for those who are able and supported in adapting.​

History is our guide, and automation won’t spell the end of work. It will redefine where, how, and who does the job. The task ahead is to become advocates of progress and align so that people are prepared to move forward with it.

The recent Government shutdown has given us a pretty harsh reminder of a reality it has brought to light: A large percentage of Americans have become dependent on federal food assistance programs like SNAP- this dependence has not made us more secure; it has made us more fragile. Millions are at risk of losing access to food stamps by the deadline, and are at the mercy of the Government’s game of chicken. If they can giveth, they can taketh away- it is long overdue that we rethink our dependence on Government and the legacy of its food aid.

History and Growth of Food Aid

It’s been with good intentions since the original 1939 Food Stamp Program. Still, federal efforts to address hunger have only grown, reaching a breaking point in today’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which enrolls over 41 million Americans. This is more than one in eight citizens. In 2024 alone, SNAP allocated upwards of $110 billion in benefits. At first glance, this appears to be a safety net built on compassion to fight poverty and hunger. But behind public welfare is an underlying buildup of dependency, an inefficient system, and a distorted market, suppressing individuals’ ability to flourish

The Persistent Poverty Trap

Food insecurity is indeed a real and pressing matter; however, analysis shows that, as SNAP grows, reductions in the causes of poverty cannot be observed. Census Bureau data between 2007 and 2019 reveal that, as SNAP rolls increased dramatically following the Great Recession, rates of deep poverty and long-term unemployment remained relatively high. Studies strongly indicate that programs like SNAP actually remove the incentive to seek work or transition to independence. In essence, the dependence on the program creates a cycle, keeping this in a locked-in poverty prison, which certainly is economically and psychologically debilitating.

Bureaucracy Blocks Community and Resilience

Government bureaucracy interferes with people’s most basic needs; something essential gets lost -the sense that nourishment is obtained and supported through meaningful work and community. Instead, complicated rules and subsidies from programs like SNAP disrupt the natural flow of resources, deterring innovation in the private sector and removing the motivation to become self-reliant. What’s worse,

people are locked in; their well-being is dependent not just on the Government, but on overcoming political gridlock. This recent shutdown showed how a shutdown can abruptly cut off benefits for millions, leaving families hungry. To make matters worse, they are powerless and separated from the support networks that once gave them much-needed aid. Their present-day alternative is stuck waiting for politicians to decide their fate.

Inefficiencies and Disparities in SNAP

There are no hypothetical shortcomings within bureaucracy. Like many Government programs, federal food aid involves layer upon layer of red tape, lengthy lines at social service offices, intrusive eligibility checks, holds on benefit distribution, and one-size-fits-all rules that ignore local realities and individual needs. Even worse, as much as 20% of SNAP spending is lost to administrative costs, fraud, and inefficiency. Look past just economic waste, SNAP and other federal food programs have faced valid and ongoing criticisms for racial and geographic disparities, which look more like political bargaining than honest compassion.

Charity and Mutual Aid: Past and Present

There is a reasonable counterclaim that charity alone won’t fill the massive vacuum left by a federal withdrawal from the program, particularly amid concentrated urban poverty or during an economic crisis. I’d counter that this pessimism minimizes both the history and the new evidence from today’s decentralized mutual aid networks. Before the New Deal, America’s landscape was filled with thousands of community-based societies, churches, and fraternal organizations that provided substantial support to the hungry, were flexible and quick, and had lower overhead than today’s programs. Numerous modern mutual aid initiatives, such as regional food banks, faith-based kitchens, and local buying clubs, have shown remarkable adaptability in responding to needs during the COVID-19 pandemic and recent Government shutdowns, when bureaucratic systems failed.

Voluntary Security versus Central Planning

We must cut to the heart of this debate: proper security comes from voluntary cooperation, local knowledge, and the dignity of free society, not from central planners imposed by political players who couldn’t possibly understand community realities. If Congress holds the power to withhold food through gridlock, its citizens become reliant and at the mercy of the state. They are deprived of hope.

A Path Forward: Community Solutions

America does not need to continue the path of supporting politicized systems that fail in moments of crisis. Simply shrinking federal food programs and shifting power to communities, donors, and private organizations, we can rediscover the stability, responsibility, and pride that come from voluntary action. Instead of treating food as a tool of federal policy, we should trust in society’s inventiveness and compassion. Recent shutdowns should ignite outrage and inspire a renewed commitment to building private, local networks of support impervious to political gamesmanship.

An honest accounting with the federal food aid legacy does not require the abolition of our safety net in the blink of an eye. But as the shutdown’s fallout made clear, America has an urgent need to move away from harmful dependence. It’s time to reclaim the voluntary spirit that’s always been America’s true foundation. We owe it to our fellow citizens to pursue solutions rooted in freedom, solidarity, and community, rather than bureaucracy and political impulse.

Sources

• Government Shutdown Imperils SNAP and Other Antipoverty Programs - New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/27/us/politics/trump-shutdown-snap-food-stamps-aid.html

• Charity vs Welfare through Austrian lens - r/austrian_economics, https://www.reddit.com/r/austrian_economics/comments/1fte9pt/charity_vs_welfare_through_austrian_lens/

• 1939 – First Prototype for Food Stamps: Excludes Many People of Color During the Great Depression - Florida Timeline, https://www.floridatimeline.org/timeline/1939-first-prototype-for-food-stamps-excludes-many-people-of-color-during-the-great-depression/

• Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890–1967 - Mises Institute, https://mises.org/quarterly-journal-austrian-economics/review-mutual-aid-welfare-state-fraternal-societies-and-social-services-1890-1967-david-beito

• Austrian Economics and Classical Liberalism - Mises Institute, https://mises.org/mises-daily/austrian-economics-and-classical-liberalism

• What Are Austrian Alternatives To Welfare? - YouTube,

Reagan’s Actual Stance: Tariffs As a Final Resource

Reagan’s 1987 radio address was straightforward and lacking in ambiguity. “I am loath to take’ steps like tariffs or trade barriers, Reagan declared, warning: ‘high tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars.” Reagan practiced what he preached; he saw the risks and what was at stake when we embrace protectionism over free trade. He described a bleak future in which we would have to embrace such barriers, saying, “markets shrink and collapse, businesses shut down, and millions of people lose their jobs.” For Reagan, tariffs meant we reached an impasse and used them sparingly as desperate interventions for blatant violations, such as Japan’s dumping of semiconductors. He understood that protectionism comes at the direct cost to American workers, famously citing the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act during the Great Depression as evidence that “protectionism becomes destructionism.”

There are real consequences of trade wars: after the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act passed in 1930, tariffs shot up, and nearly two dozen countries retaliated. There was a devastating result: world trade plummeted by 66% between 1929 and 1934, unemployment skyrocketed in America from 8% to a staggering 25%, causing markets to shrink and collapse, and millions of jobs to vanish. Economists and historians alike agree that while the Great Depression had many causes, these protectionist policies compounded the problem, hurting all, from farmers to businesses, and worsening economic distress at an international level.

Free Trade Builds Strength, Not Weakness

Let’s set the record straight. Reagan wasn’t the kind of leader who wanted America to embrace economic isolation. It was Reagan, not the protectionists, who first paved the way to NAFTA, later renegotiated as the USMCA. For Reagan, American power and leadership came from free and open markets and from allowing goods, ideas, and innovation to flow as imports and exports. Instead of trying to isolate, he saw trade as a way to build stronger alliances, open new doors for opportunity, and even strengthen our national security as we diversified where we conducted business; after all, trade wars can lead to greater conflicts. His trade philosophy is part of a formula for maintaining a strong economy and remains a key pillar of any smart trade policy today.

When Toughness Is Required: Lessons Learned from Russia and China

But Reagan was fluid and far from stubborn in foreign affairs. Against adversaries, he showed unwavering decisiveness by facing the Soviet Union with strength and a willingness to engage in complex negotiations. In trade, his administration targeted unfair practices from countries like Japan and China with narrowly focused sanctions, always regarding tariffs strictly as tools with the purpose to restore the balance Trump’s efforts to challenge China, especially on intellectual property theft and industrial dumping, strongly reflect the need to stand firm against economic aggression. In fact, Trump’s 2018 targeted tariffs on washing machines and solar panels, explicitly aimed at dumping, closely resemble Reagan’s tactical approach rather than the broader anti-trade rhetoric. Reagan’s lesson is one of restraint: to use these powers strategically and as a last resort, to meet at the negotiation table and find a long-term, stable solution, never as a weapon, more so as a defensive tactic.

The Path Forward: Reaganism Over Reaction

The Ontario ad controversy shows us the risks of selectively editing history for political gain. While the Reagan Foundation objected that Ontario’s ad “selectively edited” the President’s remarks for effect, it proved unable to dispute the overarching, anti-tariff substance. We can find real lessons for policymakers in Reagan’s playbook: prioritize free markets, reserve tariffs for emergency scenarios, and build trust at the international level with predictable rules, not random aggression. As Trump looks to secure America’s future, he should follow Reagan’s balanced approach: stand firm against our rivals, such as Russia and China, build strong alliances, and resist the temptation to embrace protectionism as an economic fix.

Let’s not get lost in emotional rhetoric, and let’s remind ourselves of what actually works. Reagan showed us that levying tariffs as a negotiation tactic with our partners leads to trade wars and economic hardship for everyone. His legacy offers lessons on how to keep our economy strong and stable. If President Trump really wants to protect American workers and our future, he should follow Reagan’s free-market playbook rather than rewriting history.

Sources

Full text and analysis of Reagan’s 1987 radio address on tariffs and free trade:

• CBC: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ronald-reagan-tariff-speech-9.6951796

• BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyz1e201r8o

• Reagan Presidential Library official archive: https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/radio-address-nation-free-and-fair-trade-4

• Youtube (full video of Reagan’s speech):

Coverage of the Ontario ad, Trump’s reaction, and statements from key players:

• Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-terminating-trade-talks-canada-over-reagan-ad-2025-10

• Fox Business: https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/trump-ends-canada-trade-talks-over-fake-ronald-reagan-tariff-ad-egregious

• CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/24/politics/reagan-1987-speech-tariffs-trade-vis

• CTV News: https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/article/what-the-ronald-reagan-ad-that-got-trump-so-angry-was-really-all-about/

• CBC (Ontario/Ford’s defense and ad details): https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ford-defends-us-tariff-ad-campaign-9.6952518

Background on Mark Carney’s response and Canada’s trade policy shift:

• Yahoo Finance: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trade-talks-were-making-progress-141900095.html

• BBC World: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyz1e201r8o

• Business Insider (Ontario pausing ad): https://www.businessinsider.com/watch-reagan-ad-led-trump-to-end-canada-trade-talks-2025-10

Reagan Foundation’s statement regarding the ad:

• Axios: https://www.axios.com/2025/10/24/canada-ontario-trump-tariffs-ad-reagan

Historical context on Smoot-Hawley and protectionism:

• Britannica summary: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Smoot-Hawley-Tariff-Act

• Investopedia explainer: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/smoot-hawley-tariff-act.asp

• NPR trade and Depression explainer: https://www.npr.org/2025/03/06/nx-s1-5318076/tariffs-great-depression-explainer

• ABC News legacy/context in 2025: https://abcnews.go.com/Business/smoot-hawley-tariffs-trump/story?id=116381286

• Corporate Finance Institute historical impact: https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/economics/smoot-hawley-tariff-act/

Call it the “third time’s a charm” scenario. After years of battling the bureaucracy that marketed itself as immune to accountability, the Trump administration’s prosecutors finally have a case that cuts through political theater and hits based on evidence. James Comey and Letitia James didn’t quite hit the mark. The Bolton indictment is a bullseye.

The Untouchable Elite?

For years, bureaucratic elites like Bolton seemed untouchable, wielding their positions to attack a president they opposed while claiming the moral high ground. He leaked information and wrote a tell-all book, all while portraying himself as a guardian of democracy. It seemed Bolton would never be held accountable. That narrative has shifted.

The Case Against John Bolton: This Isn’t Comey or James

Federal prosecutors charged Bolton on October 17, 2025, with 18 felony counts under the Espionage Act for knowingly possessing and sharing national defense information. The indictment alleges eight communications and ten document retentions at classification levels that were Secret or Top Secret.

The BBC and NPR both reported that prosecutors uncovered over 1,000 pages of classified notes seized from Bolton’s Maryland residence. Bolton allegedly used personal email and messaging apps to send sensitive materials. This included information about foreign rivals’ missile plans, American covert operations, and alliances with intelligence allies, to relatives who did not have clearances.

In 2021, it was an Iranian hacker cyber-breach that exposed some of the data Bolton allegedly mismanaged. An alarming factor that Reuters describes as part of what makes this case “stronger than the recent charges against other Trump foes.”

Bolton’s actions are far more textbook Espionage Act violations than the politically charged cases brought earlier against Comey and James. It’s not simply about purpose or procedure; it’s about documentable leaks of state secrets.

This Case Carries More Weight

The cases against Comey and James are muddied; their cases are not clear-cut obstruction cases and are not likely to stick. Bolton’s case is supported by concrete, document-based forensic evidence. CNN’s analysis explains:

Physical and digital proof exists. Investigators have transmissions and timeline corroboration from Bolton’s NSA tenure (2018-2019), and clear statutory violations under 18 U.S.C. § 793(e).

The charges are historically easier to prove. The Wall Street Journal notes this represents “a more traditional case” than other recent indictments, one built on forensic evidence rather than conflicting accounts.

Traditional critics admit the strength of this case. Andrew Weissmann told NPR that the evidence against Bolton fits a “classic Espionage Act profile.” This is not political theater; this is a true crime.

Political and Symbolic Significance

Unlike with Comey and James, Bolton’s indictment has Trump’s Justice Department appearing to have a validated narrative he’s pushed since 2019. Trump has claimed that the “deep state” opposition that undermined him is actually guilty of abuse of office and national security violations.

Comey and James could easily point to selective prosecution. Still, Bolton’s pattern of handling classified material and book profits derived from intelligence disclosures after leaving office, makes that argument substantially weaker by comparison. The evidence screams louder, cutting through political noise.

Changing The Game Via Accountability

For years, it seemed the political elite were beyond accountability. Bolton’s turning on Trump looked impervious to justice, but now, Trump’s third indictment lands where proof and justice coincide. This time, we are seeing accountability and a showing that the elite are under the arm of the law.

Accountability should apply to all and Bolton’s indictment marks a major legal milestone which could lead to restored public faith. Political power can no longer hide. The message is crystal clear: you leak classified information, you face the consequences, and we don’t need to worry ourselves which administration you served. Whether a crime was committed or not is our only basis for applying the law.

What will come next from this? Will these prosecutions lead to broader institutional reform in which all officials, irrespective of political affiliation, face the same level of scrutiny? The answer will determine whether this is merely a settling of scores or the beginning of an honest repair and trust in our justice system. Many have demanded accountability at the highest levels, and the Bolton indictment suggests that change is on its way.

Sources:

1. PBS NewsHour — What to Know About the Federal Charges Against John Bolton https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-to-know-about-the-federal-charges-against-john-bolton

2. Newsweek — John Bolton Indictment: Five Key Takeaways https://www.newsweek.com/john-bolton-indictment-five-key-takeaways-10894818

3. Reuters — Bolton Faces Tougher Defense Than Other Trump Foes Charged With Crimes https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/bolton-faces-tougher-defense-than-other-trump-foes-charged-with-crimes-2025-10-17

4. BBC News — John Bolton: Former Trump National Security Adviser Indicted https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgql2qzkz5zo

5. CNN — Why the Bolton Indictment Is Different From the Comey and James Cases https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/17/politics/why-the-bolton-indictment-is-different-from-comey-james

6. NPR — A Legal Analyst Weighs In on the Federal Indictment of John Bolton https://www.npr.org/2025/10/17/nx-s1-5577798/a-legal-analyst-weighs-in-on-the-federal-indictment-of-john-bolton

7. Wall Street Journal — Why the DOJ’s John Bolton Case Is Different Than Trump’s Pursuit of Other Foes https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/why-the-bolton-case-is-different-than-trumps-pursuit-of-other-foes-90e55e32

A Matter of National Security

Trump’s team is defending the strikes on the following premises: first, to stop drug flows and their destruction in various US communities, and second, countering Venezuela’s supposed “weaponization” of migration. “They have emptied their prisons into the United States of America... And the other thing, the drugs,” Trump stated. The administration’s identification of Venezuelan cartels as terrorists changes the means by which we can go after the traffickers as enemy combatants, extending presidential power under Article II.

Officials argue that traditional methods proved to be ineffective. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, “We are going to take on drug cartels wherever they are… against the interests of the US.” Trump was blunt: “We’ve been doing that for 30 years, and it has been totally ineffective. They have faster boats… but they’re not faster than missiles.”

Legal Framework

US presidents, both Democratic and Republican, have often exerted broad military power abroad without direct congressional approval,from Jefferson to Obama,this is nothing new. The Trump administration mentions the 2001 AUMF, self-defense under international law, and the Commander-in-Chief authority as legal grounds.

The 2024 Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. United States (6-3) grants stronger presidential powers, giving “absolute immunity” for core constitutional acts. The majority, led by Chief Justice Roberts, wrote: “Presidents may not be prosecuted for exercising [core constitutional powers]…” Justice Sotomayor’s dissent warned this could make “the President… a king above the law.” This ruling provides additional legal authority for swift executive action abroad.

Operational Results & Strategy

Trump argues that the strikes have disrupted trafficking routes, strengthened US security, and put significant pressure on the Maduro regime. “Earlier morning, on my orders, U.S. Military Forces executed a kinetic strike against confirmed Tren de Aragua narcoterrorists,” he posted online. The Pentagon expresses a “non-international armed conflict” in the region, changing the rules of engagement.

The visible US naval presence in the Caribbean sends a message: if you traffic drugs or support hostile migration, there will be military consequences.

Legal and Moral Criticism

Opposition in Congress, like Sens. Kaine and Paul, argue the strikes violate the War Powers Act and lack congressional approval. International legal scholars, including Michael Becker (Trinity College Dublin), claim, “The characterization of those killed as narco-terrorists does not make them lawful military targets. The US is not at war with Venezuela…” Human rights lawyers like Mary Ellen O’Connell (Notre Dame) also caution, “Labeling everyone a terrorist does not make them a legitimate target and allows states to bypass international law.”

The White House has countered with the position that Venezuela’s Government surrendered sovereignty to cartels and that the right of self-defense under UN law is applicable. The administration claims that the details of the operations remain classified to protect intelligence sources. This is supported as it’s a longstanding practice in US military targeting.

Checks & Balances

Congress has funding power, but not without dealing with gridlock. Kaine’s effort to restrict presidential military power faces long odds in the Senate. The Courts, by and large, defer to the executive in matters relating to national security; Courts typically remain out of military decisions, and you can’t sue the Government just because you don’t like the policy-you’d have to prove the strikes personally harmed you.

Conclusion

Here’s the brass tacks: these strikes will either work and deter the cartels, or they won’t. If drug shipments decline and cartels shift their operations away from our shores, Trump will be vindicated. If trafficking continues unchecked, we’ll have learned an expensive lesson; however, you’d be hard-pressed to find a better deterrent than Trump’s approach. But after 30 years of failure, at least someone’s trying something new.

References and Further Reading

Legal Challenge Trackers

• Just Security – Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions: https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/

• Lawfare – Trump Administration Litigation Tracker: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/projects-series/trials-of-the-trump-administration/tracking-trump-administration-litigation

• New York Times – Tracking the Lawsuits Against Trump’s Agenda: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/us/trump-administration-lawsuits.html

• AP News – Tracking the lawsuits against the Trump administration: https://apnews.com/projects/trump-executive-order-lawsuit-tracker/

• Politico – Trump legal charges and court cases: https://www.politico.com/trump-charges-court-cases-coverage-analysis

Supreme Court Case – Trump v. United States (2024)

• Supreme Court Opinion (PDF): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

• Oyez Case Summary: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-939

• Wikipedia Summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States

• Constitutional Accountability Center Analysis: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/trump-v-united-states/

• Brookings Institution Commentary: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/trump-v-united-states-explaining-the-outrage/

Strike Casualties and Administration Statements

• Reuters – US strike on alleged drug boat off Venezuela kills six, Trump says: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-strike-boat-off-venezuela-kills-six-trump-says-2025-10-14/

• BBC – Trump says 11 killed in US strike on drug-carrying vessel: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpwywjgynyxo

• BBC – US strikes on ‘Venezuela drug boats’: What do we know: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdjzw3gplv7o

• Fox News – Trump touts another US strike near Venezuela: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-touts-another-us-strike-near-venezuela-killed-six-alleged-drug-smugglers

Legal Criticism and Expert Commentary

• BBC – Expert analysis and legal perspective: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdjzw3gplv7o

• CFR – Armed Conflict? Trump’s Venezuela Boat Strikes Test US Law: https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/armed-conflict-trumps-venezuela-boat-strikes-test-us-law

• Brookings – Analysis of Supreme Court decision: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/trump-v-united-states-explaining-the-outrage/

Analysis and Commentary

• Niskanen Center – The Supreme Court is enabling Trump’s executive power: https://www.niskanencenter.org/the-supreme-court-is-enabling-trumps-executive-power/

• MSNBC – Trump claims deadly boat strikes are over alleged drug trafficking. They’re still illegal: https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-claims-deadly-boat-strikes-are-alleged-drug-trafficking-still-il-rcna237681

• BBC – Trump’s Venezuela CIA deployment means no limits on what could happen: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c751l7gqx1no

Civil Liberties and Rights Perspectives

• ACLU – Rights Groups Demand Legal Memo on Caribbean Boat Strikes: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/rights-groups-demand-legal-memo-on-trumps-executions-of-alleged-drug-smugglers-in-caribbean

Breaking News Coverage

• Newsweek – Donald Trump Suffers Double Legal Setback Within Hours: https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-suffers-double-legal-setback-within-hours-10893976

This is a pattern we know all too well. Prominent economists, including Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard, spent decades warning that tariffs are an illusion of prosperity —not a reality. Initially, countries appear stronger, but really there is a large, inefficient gap. By and large, especially in the way in which we collect taxes, tariffs do not work, but there’s one exception where we must ignore the benefits of free trade. In a true push for freedom, there is only one morally justifiable case for tariffs.

Price Signal Short Circuited

Prices are vital signals that carry necessary information, and tariffs completely obstruct those signals. They start by artificially inflating import prices; in turn, domestic producers make decisions that ignore actual demand and efficiency. Mises put it well: tariffs “injure the consumer... who is prevented from purchasing from more efficient competitors at a lower price.”

We’re left with capital and labor flowing toward industries that survive not because they’re efficient, but because they’re government-protected. This isn’t a free market — national industry chases Government preferences rather than consumer demand. When the 2018 steel tariffs took effect, investment flowed into steel mills—but not because American steel had suddenly become more competitive. This was not an actual market signal.

Short-Term Jobs, Long-Term Costs

On paper, and initially, tariffs save jobs- only briefly. A steel tariff leads to an immediate surge in hiring in the steel sector. Every job “saved” in steel destroys jobs elsewhere —ultimately, where the jobs should go. With reduced competition and a missing market signal, companies that use steel, such as automakers, construction firms, and appliance manufacturers, face rising costs and, in turn, they respond by cutting staff, raising prices, or moving operations overseas. A case in point: Harley-Davidson moved production to Thailand after steel tariffs tightened its margins.

Hayek explained that efficient markets depend on knowledge dispersed across millions of consumers and producers, each responding to local conditions.Tariffs eliminate the organic market process and replace it with political calculation, and bureaucrats decide which industries matter, not the consumer who is making the purchase and creating the demand.

Declining Competition and Innovation

Free competition is the driving force behind Capitalism. Tariffs are, in turn, the brake force. Monopolies exist rarely in an accurate free market, and in cases where they do, it’s not a free market; it’s a creation of Government interference. Walter Block stated: “exists if there are legal barriers to entry.” We see this often through regulation and red tape, and we see it again with tariffs. In their purest form, they are legal obstacles giving favored industries monopoly-like power over domestic markets.

Research from the American Action Forum confirms that tariffs discourage innovation by removing competitive pressure. Instead of developing better or cheaper products, firms focus their energy on lobbying to ensure continued protection. The long-term effect is quite predictable: fewer choices that come with a decrease in quality, and an increase in prices.

A Political Trap

Tariffs give industries a quick boost that shortly crumbles. At first, companies enjoy profits because foreign competition is gone. But those profits attract more players, flooding the market and erasing the initial gains. What’s left is an inefficient industry shielded from real competition. These firms don’t adapt; they become dependent on Government help and become efficient at lobbying. This creates a long‑term cycle of weakness and political dependency.

The Moral Exception: Tariffs Against Slave Labor

We can see, in theory, how tariffs are not sound policy. But there’s one morally profound exception-and it’s rooted in defending freedom itself. It’s based on our shared principle, in particular the free-market principle, that all human interactions must be voluntary. Coercion destroys both morality and markets. Slave labor, the basis of some industries in modern China, creates a strong case for tariffs.

Forced Labor in China

In China’s Xinjiang region, over one million Uyghurs are victims of state-enforced labor programs, indoctrination camps, mass sterilization, and surveillance networks designed to obliterate their culture.

International investigations, survivor testimony, and U.S. State Department findings confirm what’s happening: genocide, implemented through forced labor embedded across global supply chains. Cotton, solar panels, textiles, electronics—products Americans buy daily are tainted by systematic enslavement.

The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (passed in 2022) bans imports made wholly or partially in Xinjiang. Its logic follows moral guidelines: we WILL NOT profit from goods made by people deprived of their humanity and fundamental rights.

Why This Tariff Is Different

Tariffs are only justified when they protect liberty, not privilege. Goods produced through force, rather than voluntary exchange, are illegitimate from the start. The “market advantage” of slave labor does not come from efficiency or innovation; its foundation is in violence and coercion. In this circumstance, tariffs don’t function as protectionism; they function as a form of justice.

Three points clarify why this exception doesn’t contradict good economic principles:

Defense Against Aggression. Ethics forbid provoking force. When enslaved people make goods, voluntary exchange doesn’t exist. A ban defends consumers from unknowingly participating in such an immoral practice.

Correction of Market Distortion. Authoritarian governments put false signals into the market. This is a true market distortion, not brought on by the tariff itself. The tariff serves to delegitimize slavery.

Moral Coherence of Free Trade. Freedom precedes free trade. Trading with nations that enslave their workforce corrupts the moral basis of Capitalism. Markets are good because they’re built on voluntary exchange; we can’t profit from involuntary labor. This would be a contradiction of the highest order.

Tariffs Against Freedom vs. Tariffs for Freedom

Tariffs that protect ineffective domestic producers are anti-liberal and anti-market. They reward political connections, suppress innovation, and raise consumer costs while removing competition.

Tariffs targeted at systems of forced labor uphold the very principle freedom and free markets defend: voluntary exchange and human liberty. The only criterion we should consider them is if they preserve the very freedom we need for the market to be free.

In just about every other case, tariffs damage both freedom and prosperity. In the case of slave labor, refusing to impose them destroys both. The question facing proponents of free trade isn’t whether markets should be free; it’s whether we’re willing to call slavery “trade”. Can we honestly claim to be moral beings and support free markets while building our prosperity off of enslaved people?

Tariffs are bad on a national and global scale, but the use case for China is there- we cannot in good conscience do business with them. We can trade freely with free people, or stop pretending commerce built on concentration camps has anything to do with free markets.

Further Reading

• An Austrian Perspective On Tariffs – Eurasia Review

• Tariffs – An Austrian Economic Perspective – Fineberg Wealth

• The Anticompetitive Effects of Tariffs – American Action Forum

• Mises on the Boon of a Tariff Privilege

• Why Tariffs Backfire: The Austrian Economics Case Against Trade Barriers

• China’s Economy Runs on Uyghur Forced Labor – Pulitzer Center

• Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act – CSIS Analysis

Here’s the uncomfortable truth being missed: The real problem isn’t the shutdown itself-it’s that we need tens of thousands of people to run our tax system at all.

An Already Broken System

Furloughs are a nightmare scenario. Daily costs exceed $400 million, and there is a tangible impact on people. With this in mind, we must look at what this crisis is also exposing: our tax system is flimsy and broken.

The IRS has dropped from 102,000 to fewer than 76,000 workers this year alone. That’s a 26% cut, and there’s more coming. You might think the cuts are causing these issues, but even before the reductions, the system was failing.

The IRS claimed average phone wait times were three minutes. Watchdogs found that many callers actually waited closer to 20 minutes. Identity theft victims wait an average of 602 days for resolution. Nearly two years to resolve identity theft—would you want to wait that long? Improper payment rates for programs like the earned income tax credit range from 22% to 26%.

This isn’t just a budget crisis-this system was never designed to handle what we’re asking of it.

We’ve Been Here Before

Are you familiar with the large-scale IRS reorganization of 1998? Congress promised better assistance and efficiency. If this sounds familiar, it should-decades later, we’re still dealing with identical concerns. Why? Because you can’t reorganize your way out of administering an impossible system. The complexity is the disease; the IRS is just the symptom.

A Partisan Misunderstanding

Democrats push for more funding and staff. Republicans want to slash and burn the agency. Both are mistaken.

More money won’t fix a tax code designed for political bartering and special interests. But gutting the IRS without simplifying the code just guarantees worse service and more frustration.

Here’s a simple breakdown: Americans pay twice. First, through taxes that fund this giant bureaucracy, then again to TurboTax and accountants to navigate this self-created labyrinth.

Technology Isn’t A Savior

People think AI will provide a fix. Technology helps-it can flag fraud and speed up processing. But here’s what technology can’t do: automate chaos. Software can’t make complicated simple.

If the tax code were actually straightforward, most people could file in minutes without assistance, and we wouldn’t need a legion to facilitate it.

What Simple Would Look Like

Can you imagine filing your taxes in minutes rather than days? No more paying hundreds of dollars for help interpreting rules that even the IRS struggles with. No more loopholes that complicate the process. Done with hostile relationships between taxpayers and government.

Other countries have found success with this. They have pre-filled returns and simplified filings. We could see the same results if Congress cared more about transparency than managing their voter base.

The Real Solution

The current debate over IRS funding is looking in all the wrong places. We can fix this, but we need to:

Begin with revolutionary simplification. Scrap the challenges brought on by deductions, credits, and exemptions. Replace them with broad bases and clear rates. Every loophole has its own lobby, but the current system doesn’t serve the general public well.

Modernize the technology. Create systems that work with streamlined code-simplify first, then let technology do its job.

Right-size the agency. Establish staffing levels that reflect actual workload, rather than bouncing between hiring sprees and furloughs.

The Bottom Line

This is a crisis, and we’d be foolish to just return to the status quo and pretend all is fine. If identity theft victims wait two years for service and we’re waiting 20 minutes for a conversation, returning to what’s already not working is an epic failure.

The question isn’t whether the IRS is bloated-it is. The real question is: why do we want to support a system designed for bloat just to be dysfunctional?

Until Congress addresses this, we’ll keep repeating the same cycle: crisis, patch, decline, repeat.

CITATIONS

1. IRS Staffing Reductions (25,000+ employees lost, 102,000 to 76,000):

   • Tax Lane, “IRS Staffing Cuts In 2025: What Taxpayers And Professionals Need To Know”

   • https://taxlane.com/%F0%9F%9A%A8-irs-staffing-cuts-in-2025

2. Wait Times Misreporting (3 minutes claimed vs 17-19 minutes actual):

   • CPA Practice Advisor, “IRS Didn’t Accurately Report Wait Times for Taxpayers Calling for Help” (September 2, 2025)

   • https://cpapracticeadvisor.com/2025/09/02/irs-didnt-accurately-report-wait-times-for-taxpayers-calling-for-help

   • CFO Dive, “IRS underreports wait times for taxpayers phoning in for help: TIGTA”

   • https://cfodive.com/news/irs-underreports-wait-times-taxpayers-phone-help-tigta

   • Forbes, “Watchdog Says IRS Could Do Better Reporting Telephone Service”

   • https://forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/watchdog-says-irs-could-do-better-reporting-telephone-service

3. Identity Theft Resolution Time (602 days/20 months):

   • Taxpayer Advocate Service, “Review of the 2025 Filing Season” [PDF]

   • https://taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/wp-content/uploads/review-of-the-2025-filing-season.pdf

4. Budget Cuts (37% budget reduction, 20% staffing cuts in FY 2026):

   • The Tax Adviser, “IRS budget request cuts 20% of employees in 2026, increases enforcement” (June 2025)

   • https://thetaxadviser.com/news/2025/jun/irs-budget-request-cuts-20-employees-2026

5. Congressional Hearings (September 2025):

   • Various TIGTA reports referenced in documents

6. Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee:

   • Ways and Means Committee, “Smith: Taxpayers Benefit from Modernization of IRS Under Trump” (September 25, 2025)

   • https://waysandmeans.house.gov/2025/09/25/smith-taxpayers-benefit-from-modernization-of-irs-under-trump

7. “One, Big, Beautiful Bill” Act (2025):

   • IRS.gov, “One, Big, Beautiful Bill provisions”

   • https://irs.gov/newsroom/one-big-beautiful-bill-provisions

8. Ways and Means 2025 Tax Proposals:

   • Pillsbury Law, “Ways & Means Releases Proposed 2025 Federal Income Tax...”

   • https://pillsburylaw.com/en/news-and-insights/ways-means-releases-proposed-2025-federal-income-tax

9. Senate Finance Committee Tax Reform:

   • https://finance.senate.gov/taxreform

10. Taxpayer Advocate Mid-Year Report (June 25, 2025):

    • Taxpayer Advocate Service, “Rain or Shine: The IRS Must Prepare Now for Next Year’s Filing Season”

    • https://taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/news/nta-blog/rain-or-shine-the-irs-must-prepare-now

11. 2025 Filing Season Start (January 27):

    • IRS, “IRS announces January 27 start to 2025 tax filing season” (IR-2025-08, January 10, 2025)

    • https://irs.gov/newsroom/irs-announces-jan-27-start-to-2025-tax-filing-season

12. Direct Deposit Statistics (94%):

    • Taxpayer Advocate Service, “As the IRS Phases Out Paper Checks, Vulnerable Taxpayers Must...”

    • https://taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/news/nta-blog/as-the-irs-phases-out-paper-checks

13. EITC Improper Payment Rates (22-26%, over-claim 29-39%):

    • Tax Policy Center, “What are error rates for refundable credits and what causes them?”

    • https://taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-are-error-rates-refundable-credits-and-what-causes-them

14. Former IRS Executives on Modernization Cuts:

    • FedScoop, “Former IRS executives explain the impact of DOGE cuts”

    • https://fedscoop.com/irs-modernization-doge-cuts

15. Math Error Notices:

    • Taxpayer Advocate Service, “Math Error Notices: What You Need to Know”

    • https://taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/news/nta-blog/math-error-notices

16. Government Shutdown/Furlough Information:

    • Forbes, “IRS Halts Most Taxpayer Services As It Furloughs Nearly Half Its Workers”

    • https://forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/irs-halts-most-taxpayer-services-furloughs

    • CBO, “Potential Effects of a Federal Government Shutdown” [PDF]

    • https://cbo.gov/system/files/potential-effects-federal-government-shutdown.pdf

17. IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998:

    • Wikipedia, “Internal Revenue Service”

    • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_S

What Really Happened

The Department of Justice indicted Letitia James for allegedly misrepresenting a Virginia property as a “secondary residence” rather than a rental investment on a 2020 mortgage form-an act that, the DOJ claims, saved her roughly $18,900 in mortgage costs. That’s the presumed “crime.”

A deeper dive into the facts shows a classic “no case” scenario. This is cut and dried. Career prosecutors, a group whose jobs and reputations depend on winning, reviewed the evidence for several months and ultimately decided there was not enough to file charges. Their legal analysis is based on only cases with a clear, provable intent to defraud. The judgment was simple: this is not a winnable case. This is based on evidence and federal legal standards - not whims.

When Did The Evidence Change

I’ll give you a hint—the evidence never changes; the whole case falls apart here. When federal prosecutor Erik Siebert decided not to bring charges, he was “replaced”. Then Lindsey Halligan enters the stage. She is a Trump defense lawyer with limited prosecutorial experience. She was an appointee with a directive. Simple - make magic happen, regardless of evidence. And suddenly, a case that was too weak became a federal offense with the wave of a wand.

You may already know this, but this is not how the system is supposed to work. Federal prosecutors have tremendous discretion, and their role is to bring cases only when the evidence is strong enough to stick. They are arbiters, NOT political strongmen. In a working system, weak cases do not see the inside of a courtroom. When it’s not working, the law can be used as a tool for vengeance.

An Emerging Pattern of Political Influence

This is a trending pattern. Similar moves have been made in other states: loyalists are being slotted into key federal prosecutor roles, undermining the merit-based, career-driven promotions that once insulated justice from politics. The result is a direct attack on prosecutorial independence. If a prosecutor doesn’t toe the line, they are replaced; those who play ball advance by reopening cases that were closed for lack of evidence.

James’s prosecution follows this pattern of targeting Trump’s enemies. It comes in the aftermath of her civil fraud suit against Trump. A victory is seen as a biased slight to the President. It resembles a retaliation against a public official who risked challenging an influential figure.

A Lack of Merit

The case remains, by all standards, decisively weak. Occupancy fraud - claiming you’ll live in a home you instead rent - is indicted only when there’s absolute proof of intent to mislead. The buck should have stopped when career prosecutors moved on from the case. The amount in question is inconsequential by federal standards. Further context: A purchase for a family member’s use is routine business - not an oddity.

There is no logic showing crime; this is more about spectacle. Search and replace the “no case” professionals with supporters, and you’ll get the outcome you want. A politically charged indictment, headlines, a damaged career, and political revenge masked as justice.

American Justice?

The price is being paid by Letitia James, professionally and personally. The long-term price for us all will be paid by everyone who expects prosecutors to be unbiased and independent, consistency in law, and the state to prosecute crime alone and not politics.

Legal merit is becoming irrelevant, rewarding only the “good” political outcome. This case sets a dangerous tone: any public official can be targeted if they cross the wrong people, and the law will be at the mercy of partisan demands.

This is a justice system in name only. This should be a nonpartisan alarm bell-party aside, the law must be fully protected or we shall fall.

Additional Sources

• CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/09/politics/letitia-james-grand-jury-trump-indictment

• NBC News: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/ny-attorney-general-letitia-james-trump-opponent-indicted-grand-jury-b-rcna236737

• Fox News: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-york-ag-letitia-james-indictment-sparks-sharp-partisan-divide

• Politico: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/09/letitia-james-indictment-trump-00600698

• Yahoo: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/lindsey-halligan-trump-appointee-overseeing-170500415.html