“The future of expression online will in part rest on today’s debates over what age groups can legally use platforms deemed ‘social media’ and what information we must provide to prove we’re adults and allowed to access them. This week, developments out of the UK and Australia continued the global age-verification campaign, as governments around the world push full steam ahead into dicey questions of who is allowed to speak, whether they can do so anonymously, and what responsibilities rest on platforms when teens are users.” (03/30/26)
“President Donald Trump confirmed on Sunday that the military is building a ‘massive complex’ under the White House ballroom. … News outlets previously reported that a military bunker under the East Wing would be renovated. The East Wing was demolished in October to be replaced with a $400 million ballroom, which has sparked criticism from many Democrats and preservation advocates. Trump told reporters in his Sunday remarks that ‘the ballroom essentially becomes a shed for what’s being built under.’ … The National Capital Planning Commission is set to vote on the ballroom plans in April. It has received a deluge of negative public comments about the ballroom, with critics calling it ‘appalling,’ ‘shameful’ and ‘hideous.'” (03/30/26)
“A brash bid to reassert U.S. dominance is delivering short-term wins. But a region tired of being pushed around may not stay compliant for long.” (03/30/26)
“Once you admit the notable prevalence and grave danger of crypto-Communist politicians during a particular era, there is a clear-cut contemporary implication: A notable share of current and would-be leaders who say they aren’t Communists are probably lying. If you’re living through this era, this raises a thorny question: ‘How do we identify the crypto-Communists before it’s too late?’ Needless to say, you can’t just publicly ask them, because they’ll lie. You could do a thorough background check, but the people who know the most are usually fellow Communists eager to protect their own. So you’re usually left with three admittedly imperfect heuristics.” (03/30/26)
“Unfortunately, not everyone today thinks that natural property rights are obvious. Especially in the faculty lounges of law schools and political science departments, it is now taken for granted that rights are products of sovereign power alone. Property rights in particular are assumed to be entirely conventional. Without positive laws, there is no property. And without politics, there are no positive laws. This simplistic creed has motivated a corrosive skepticism of natural property rights, which scholars and teachers have expressed in books, articles, and classrooms for more than a century.” (03/30/26)
“The congressional fight over funding the Department of Homeland Security has caused massive security lines at many large airports around the country. Privatizing airport security could avoid this problem in the future, but a more radical reform — abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and its monopoly on security procedures — would be a better solution.” (03/30/26)
“A weather person who told us to bundle up for the cold weather, but also be sure to drink plenty of fluids to protect against the heat, would not be taken very seriously. That is roughly the state of economics when it comes to basic demographic questions. On alternate days the economy seems to be suffering from too many people and too few people. Yet people somehow still take economists seriously on this issue.” (03/30/26)
“Republicans are considering reductions in federal health spending to help pay for a budget bill containing as much as $200 billion to fund the Iran war and immigration enforcement. New efforts to rein in health programs are sure to be controversial and open the GOP up to election-year attacks that they’re cutting health care to pay for an unpopular war. … House Budget Committee chairman Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) is reviving an idea that was considered last year to fund Affordable Care Act payments known as cost-sharing reductions. The Congressional Budget Office previously found the move would lower overall benchmark ACA premiums by 11% but result in 300,000 more uninsured people. It would cut the subsidy amount that some enrollees receive, thereby increasing out-of-pocket premium costs, while saving the government over $30 billion.” (03/30/26)
