“Back in 2016, Salena Zito, a conservative writer and faithful chronicler of Trump — she later stood a few feet from him when a gunman attempted to assassinate him in Butler, Pennsylvania — argued that ‘the press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.’ This idea quickly went viral, entering the bloodstream of how many commentators thought about Trump, and it retains a certain plausibility even today. … If you take everything that Trump says literally, you really do fall into his trap. But the events of the last week show that it is just as big a mistake to dismiss Trump’s most outlandish statements as pure trolling.” (04/10/25)
Source: Foundation for Economic Education
by Rachel Chiu
“Eminent domain is a practice where the government can take private property for ‘public use,’ typically for projects such as highways and government buildings. Takings are expressly limited by the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits private property from being ‘taken for public use, without just compensation.’ That language implies that the government may only use its eminent domain power if the land is taken for public use. In 2005, the Supreme Court infamously expanded the scope of eminent domain when it held that the government could take homes to make way for private development. That case, Kelo v. City of New London, relied on a deeply flawed reading of ‘public use.’ … Bowers could have been the moment that the Supreme Court curtailed eminent domain abuse and restored value to private property rights in the face of government overreach. Instead, it is now a missed opportunity.” (04/10/25)
“For nearly eight decades, the United States has shouldered a disproportionate burden in maintaining global peace, prosperity and order. After World War II, we had little choice. The world lay in ruins, and America alone had the industrial strength and confidence to lead. We opened our markets, extended our military shield, rebuilt broken nations and underwrote a new international system. But that era is over. And our policies haven’t caught up. Today, wealthy nations like Germany, France, Japan, South Korea — and yes, Canada — enjoy universal healthcare, world-class infrastructure and generous social safety nets, all while under-investing in their own defense and benefiting from privileged access to American markets. Their security remains subsidized by U.S. taxpayers, our troops and defense treaties forged when these nations were fragile and vulnerable.” (04/10/25)
“That the U.S. and Iran will open the door to talks this weekend is a very positive development. Though the media focus is on whether those talks will be direct or indirect, what will really determine their chance of success is not their format but their scope. If the talks remain tightly focused on verifiable limitations on Iran’s peaceful, civilian nuclear program, they have a real chance of succeeding; if they widen the focus to dismantling Iran’s legal civilian nuclear program, then the talks are likely dead before they even begin.” (04/10/25)
“It’s not every day the U.S. military concentrates one of its most powerful weapons on a tiny island far from nowhere. After all, their vulnerability renders them a tempting target for troublemakers. But that’s just what the Pentagon has done, dispatching at least six B-2 bombers to desolate Diego Garcia in the middle of the Indian Ocean. … The $2 billion (each!) B-2s have been attacking Houthi rebels in Yemen, which is about as gross an example of ‘overmatch’ as you can get. But the Houthis are aligned with Iran, and the U.S. is far more interested in sending Tehran a message than pulverizing second-rate Houthi military assets. The message is this: The B-2 is the only warplane that can carry the GBU-57B Massive Ordnance Penetrator. These 30,000-pound blasting behemoths are ideal for attacking Iran’s buried nuclear-development sites.” (04/10/25)
“What would a radically liberal foreign policy look like? I don’t think we’ve ever had one. As we’ve all seen it, foreign policy is the domain and the creature of nation-states, while liberalism aims at taking individuals’ liberties seriously. Making that liberty interest show through isn’t easy in foreign policy. … Liberalism at home starts with the individual, with their rights, their dignities, and their personal development. What would our foreign policy look like if we stopped seeing the world as consisting of 200-odd states? What if we saw foreign policy as mostly about a world of 8 billion individuals — with the states usually standing in the way of how we would prefer, as liberals, to treat them?” (04/10/25)
Source: Common Dreams
by Lindsey Bertsch & Danaka Katovich
“Recently, Aviation International published a conversation between the Department of Commerce Commissioner of North Dakota and a director at Thales group. The article, titled ‘North Dakota: The Silicon Valley of Drone Innovation,’ makes the case that North Dakota is the go-to state for drone technology. North Dakota’s strong ties with the drone industry formed a few years ago, with the state’s goal of transforming the state into ground zero for drone technology. By taking advantage of the state, its resources, and its people, the mission to turn North Dakota into a silicon valley for drones has already produced a vast network of unmanned aircraft system (UAS) technological hubs. However, in doing so it has also entangled North Dakotans into a deep relationship with Elbit Systems of America, a subsidiary of the Israeli company.” (04/10/25)
“Whatever the alleged merits of high tariffs, unilateral free trade, or any of these issues, these policies should not be decided by the president; the Constitution gives Congress the responsibility ‘to lay Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises’ and ‘regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.’ By handing the president ’emergency’ powers to change tariff policy in the first place, Congress has abdicated its role in setting tax policy. … Apparently, Congress wants the president to be king.” (04/10/25)
“Today most of America’s “defense” budget goes to offense. Some of that is for utterly inane operations, such as invading Iraq, defeating the Taliban to turn Afghanistan into a modern parliamentary democracy, and battling Yemen’s Ansar Allah to keep the oceans free for Europe and China. Even more resources are devoted to protecting prosperous, populous allies — Europe, along with South Korea, Japan, and numerous others. Whatever would the Pentagon do with hundreds of billions of dollars more? If all these nations spent according to their ability and need, there would be no reason for Washington to keep them as defense dependents. What new wars does Rubio imagine fighting? It is time for the U.S. to embrace peace.” (04/10/25)
“As an economist, I feel professionally obligated to point out that there is nothing inherently bad about trade deficits. Americans run deficits with some countries and surpluses with others as a natural result of consumer choice and comparative advantage, not because of nefarious foreign barriers. Again, as an economist, I care a great deal about trade — not as an abstraction, but as a mechanism of opportunity. Since the end of World War II, freer trade has catalyzed the greatest reduction of poverty in human history. In America and around the globe, wherever leaders have embraced markets, economic liberalization has raised life expectancy, lowered infant mortality, and created pathways to prosperity. … That’s why I’m baffled by the idea that tariffs are a pathway to renewal.” (04/09/25)
