Milei's Monetary Tightrope: Argentina Is Caught Between a Crawling Band and Whatever Comes Next

Last Sunday, I left Buenos Aires after spending 40 days. It suffices to say Argentina has been on my mind a lot. I have mostly examined Argentina through an academic public policy lens, but it was intriguing to see firsthand how it is to live there for a bit and to talk with Argentineans about life in Argentina. I knew that Argentina had its problems. It went from being one of the world's most powerful economies to succumbing to a populist and protectionist stranglehold of high taxes, tariffs, corruption, profligate government spending, capital controls, and currency controls. No other country in history went from being an economic powerhouse to middle-income economy the way Argentina did. 

The Challenge Ahead for Milei

I knew that whoever would try to clean up this mess would have their work cut out for them, especially given that President Javier Milei inherited one of the least free economies on the planet. It is not simply a matter of considerable political opposition that has gotten in the way. It is trying to untangle the quagmire of decades of poor economic and monetary policy choices that make it difficult. Bridging the gap between economic theory and implementing policies in practice can be quite tricky, as Milei has found. I realized this was especially the case for Milei's monetary policy. 

Understanding the Crawling Band versus the Fixed Peg

When I was in Argentina, I noticed considerable exchange rate fluctuation. I had to check daily how many pesos a dollar could purchase because it did change that drastically. As I discovered during my time in Buenos Aires, Milei has been implementing what is called a crawling band. A crawling band is an exchange rate system where a currency can fluctuate within a set range (a "band") that shifts gradually over time according to predefined rules or market conditions. The band currently is maintained between 1,000 and 1,400 Argentinean pesos (ARS) to the dollar. The premise is that it combines short-term stability with long-term flexibility. This is supposed to help avoid the shocks of a full float and issues that come with the rigidity of a fixed peg. 

Argentina had implemented a fixed peg prior to this latest crawling band. That fixed peg was unsustainable. The capital controls drained the foreign exchange reserves and incentivized importers and exporters to manipulate invoices, thereby undermining confidence in the system. A crawling band was more aligned to the market, allowed for greater transparency, and increased price signaling.  

Why a Floating Currency Is Ideal

While a crawling band is an improvement over a fixed peg, what bothers me in part is that Milei is a minarchist, which is someone who wants government only to perform the most basic of services. He studied Austrian economics and is quite skeptical of government intervention, especially when it comes to central banks. That is why it is so peculiar that he would go along with a crawling band, which is a form of government interventionism. It makes me wonder if he is abandoning his economic training or he is dealing with a clash of his ideals versus the reality of Argentina's situation. 

Ideally, Argentina would have a free floating peso. After all, a free floating currency is a good metric of a mature, stable economy. A free-floating currency allows market forces to determine the currency's value, providing a transparent signal of economic fundamentals and reducing the distortions caused by artificial pegs or interventions. It also encourages fiscal and monetary discipline, as policymakers cannot rely on fixed exchange rates to mask underlying economic weaknesses.

The problem is that Argentina's economy is neither mature nor stable. Argentina's current economic conditions, which are characterized by high inflation, low foreign reserves, persistent fiscal deficits, and weak institutional credibility, make a pure free-floating peso highly vulnerable to sharp devaluations and financial instability. A free float right now could trigger severe exchange rate volatility, capital flight, and a worsening of the current account.

That is not mere speculation. From 1991 to 2001, Argentina had pegged the peso 1:1 to the U.S. dollar. Fiscal deficits and a recession made the peg unsustainable. When the peg was abandoned, the peso plummeted and lost about 75 percent of its value in a matter of months. Hyperinflation and social unrest followed. I would not be the least bit surprised if this recent history has influenced Milei's decision to implement a crawling band. 

Lessons From Other Economies Liberalizing Currency Too Soon

Argentina is not the only country that felt pain after transitioning to a free-floating currency too quickly. In 1998, Russia allowed its ruble to free float in response to fiscal crisis. As a result, the ruble lost 70 percent of its value and inflation spiked. Prior to October 2008, Iceland had a managed float system tied to inflation targeting. Because Iceland had large foreign liabilities and small foreign reserves, its banking system collapsed and Iceland had to free float its krónur. In a matter of a few weeks, the krónur's value dropped by half and inflation surged. In 2018, Venezuela also tried to allow for floating mechanisms amid hyperinflation. However, it made matters worse. 

The takeaway here should not be that floating exchange rate systems are bad. On the contrary! A country that can manage a floating exchange rate system can handle the volatility and absorb the shocks that comes with letting the currency freely move. That is because such economies have the fundamentals to do so, whether that is a credible monetary policy; a sound fiscal policy; deep and liquid financial markets; or public and investor trust. 

Skepticism Behind Argentina's Crawling Band

The case studies above show a few commonalities with why their transition to a floating exchange rate system went awry, whether it was weak fiscal conditions, limited reserves, poor institutional credibility, or sheer panic. Argentina's current plight has such conditions. As of August, Argentina had about $33 billion in foreign reserves. In February, BNP Paribas estimated that Argentina would need about an extra $11-20 billion before the October elections to be able to lift the exchange controls. While the recent currency swap could help improve Argentina's reserves, I remain skeptical that it would be adequate to get Argentina off the crawling band:

• If the exchange rate approaches or exceeds the band in place, the central bank needs to use foreign reserves to defend the peso. Things seem to be improving, but as Argentinean economic history shows, that could change in a heartbeat. 
• Argentina still has an external financing gap of $15.2 billion. While Milei has done a good job of fiscal consolidation by reducing deficits, there is a question of whether it is sustainable, whether due to political opposition or social unrest. The midterm elections on Sunday suggest that Milei is on to something, but knowing Argentina, that could change. 
• The currency swap does not address the real exchange rate misalignment. In February, the central bank set the crawling peg at 1 percent per month. However, inflation in 2024 was 2.7 percent per month. That is a significant improvement from what it was before, but it still creates a gap. As long as domestic inflation outpaces the crawl of the peso, it will hurt export competitiveness while worsening the current account, which echo some of the unintended consequences that the Competitive Enterprise Institute warns about with such currency manipulation. Without addressing this gap, the currency swap is a temporary fix. 

As the Cato Institute illustrates in its criticism of the crawling band, when the gradual depreciation lags behind the inflation, it mirrors similar structural issues that resulted in the 1994 Mexican peso crisis and the 1997 Asian financial crisis. This could be more problematic if the currency swap does not go through or is discontinued. With this hybrid regime, speculators know the direction of the currency adjustment, which creates greater speculation. This expectation of a sharper devaluation encourages capital flight, which forces the central bank to use more reserves. This both undermines the stabilization effort and heightens the risk it was meant to prevent.  

Milei Needs an Exit Strategy

Here is my other issue with Milei's crawling band. The crawling band is often seen as a transitory regime. But what is Milei transitioning towards? Is it a free-floating peso? Is it dollarization? Is it a fixed regime? Milei's lack of an exit strategy plan makes the transitionary regime seem temporary. Investors are attuned to that lack of a plan, and as such make investors weary of investing in Argentina. Since there is not a rules-based adjustment system in Argentina, it can be viewed as a political tool rather than a credible anchor to lead towards long-term growth. Without a clear strategy, markets are not going to have enough confidence in Argentina. As the Peterson Institute for International Economics points out, a substantial currency swap line without deeper reforms will unlikely save the peso in the long-run. 

An Endgame That Could Work

As stated above, a free-floating system would be ideal. It allows market forces to set prices, it signals economic fundamentals, and it incentivizes monetary and fiscal discipline. Conversely, Argentina's structural weaknesses would make a full floating peso risky in the short run, much as history has taught us. While imperfect and prone to amplifying risks if mismanaged, it is the most viable mechanism in the short-run. My ultimate personal preference is a free-floating currency, but only when the Argentinean economy is ready for it, which it currently is not. 

Milei's crawling band could be seen as a short-term pragmatic compromise towards dollarization or ultimately a floating currency. It could be argued that markets need some gentle guiding in the short-run to reach long-term liberalization. That being said, the Milei regime needs to make the transitional crawling band head towards a credible currency system if he has any chance of a liberalized currency system to work. 

Milei could announce fiscal rules around spending limits or deficit caps. A published widening schedule or intervention triggers could improve transparency, thereby improving market confidence. Such monetary rules as a base money growth ceiling or inflation targeting paths could also help. Adhering to rules would improve institutional credibility. So would cutting public sector largesse, eliminating distortive subsidies, publishing public accounts, or ending the monetization of deficits because it signals to the markets that Argentina is breaking cycles of its dysfunctional past instead of doing it for optics' sake. Without reserves, fiscal anchors, institutional credibility, or a rules-based endgame towards a more liberalized currency regime, Milei's half measures would most likely send Argentina into more economic chaos. 

The Bank Secrecy Act at 55: Costly, Ineffective, and Still Violating Your Financial Privacy

Today marks the 55th anniversary of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), a law that has immensely shaped the relationship between financial institutions, the government, and individual privacy. Enacted in 1970, the BSA was designed to help detect and prevent money laundering, tax evasion, and other financial crimes. The BSA mandates the reporting of large cash transactions over $10,000; suspicious activities that might indicate criminal behavior, regardless of transaction amount; and certain foreign financial accounts.

The BSA was initially meant to regulate banks only. In the 1980s, this coverage extended to casinos and currency exchangers to fight the War on Drugs. Securities brokers were added to the list with the creation of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) in the 1990s. The Patriot Act significantly broadened the BSA's reach by extending anti-money-laundering (AML) obligations to a wide range of financial institutions. In the 2010s, FinCEN managed to extend the BSA to such companies as PayPal, Venmo, and Western Union. The Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 significantly updated the BSA by expanding its scope to include digital assets, requiring the reporting of corporate beneficial ownership, and strengthening FinCEN's enforcement and data-sharing powers. 

By requiring banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions to collect this level of data, the BSA has turned private institutions into surveillance agents for the state. The purpose of the Fourth Amendment was to prevent government intrusion into private affairs without judicial oversight. With the BSA, the government can monitor, store, and analyze citizens' financial data without ever proving wrongdoing. The Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. United States (1976) that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in bank records. As such, law enforcement can use this Supreme Court case as precedent to gain access to large amounts of financial data under the guise of crime prevention. For more on the constitutional issues with the BSA, you can read this Coin Center report here.

Speaking of crime prevention, how is that going? Financial institutions employ over 14,000 individuals and spend upwards of $8 billion annually to comply with BSA regulations. What do the American people get for that? Has financial crime dropped as a result of the BSA? It is difficult to tell. This is not simply because the FinCEN interim director said in 2022 that there are no precise metrics to answer that question. The Government Accountability Office (GAO), which is the legislative watchdog, had something to say on the matter. More specifically, in a 2022 GAO report, the DOJ said that there is such a data overload that they are unable to meaningfully prioritize the data. That lines up with a 2019 GAO report stating that it was unable to determine whether the reporting results in prosecutions. 

According to the Bank Policy Institute, less than 4 percent of Suspicious Activity Reports (SAR) that banks have to file per BSA mandate have any sort of follow-up. Only a small subset of these result in arrest or conviction. Looking at last year, out of the 27 million reports filed for the BSA, the IRS only initiated 372 investigations (or less than 0.001 percent). Not only are banks wasting countless hours and spending $8 billion annually to comply with the BSA, but there are many false positives or low-value leads. This minuscule benefit also undermines the justification for violating civil liberties. 

Plus, it has a chilling effect in the finance industry. As the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is right to point out, the BSA has the ability to discourage small banks and fintech firms from innovating since they are focused on regulatory compliance instead of serving customers or developing new products. This concept coincides with a 2022 Cato Institute report on the BSA's inefficacy: "These rules have also likely contributed to financial firms' hesitancy to work with emerging industries, such as cryptocurrency-related companies and blockchain-based technologies." Every dollar spent satisfying redundant filings is a dollar not spent building new financial products, expanding access to credit, or improving cybersecurity. The large compliance costs also make it easier for large incumbents to maintain market concentration.

The mission creep over the decades turned a narrow crime-fighting measure into a system of massive financial surveillance. The banks should decide what information they collect, who they do business with, and what risks they are willing to take on. If law enforcement wants to access the data, they should get a warrant. Increasing the threshold to adjust for inflation or removing the reporting requirements of the BSA would be inadequate because it minimizes, but does not eliminate the scope of its harm. The only prudent measure that would protect civil liberties while removing regulatory waste would be to repeal the BSA in its entirety, much as CEI has argued for 25 years. Letting it continue for another year would cost the American people much more than a pretty penny. 

Trump’s $100K H-1B Visa Fee Is a Protectionist Penalty on Innovation and Growth

About a month ago, President Trump imposed a staggering $100,000 fee on each H-1B visa, which is a non-immigrant visa that allows U.S. employers to temporarily hire foreign workers in specialty occupations (e.g., STEM). Per his executive order, Trump believes that the H-1B program is displacing skilled Americans while posing a national security risk. Trump's concern is that foreign workers replace American workers in tech fields and that the program is exploited for labor cost reduction, although the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond found that to be untrue (Morales, 2025). It is true that the fee does not apply to current holders or renewals, but it will have damaging effects all the same. 

I wanted to hold off on writing on this topic until there were at least some studies showing estimates, however preliminary they might be. Now I have something to write about. A study from Oxford Economics looked at the effects of Trump's immigration policies. The study shows that there will be 750,000 legal immigrants, which is 140,000 fewer immigrants than prior to Trump's policy. The study does not isolate the visa fee's effects because it is intertwined with other policies. At the same time, the fee considerably contributes to this slowdown of skilled labor inflows. This lines up with the prediction of JPMorgan Chase's economists that Trump's fee will lower H-1B visa authorizations by as many as 5,500 per month. Another major consequence of this fee is that, according to market research firm Forrester, buyers ought to expect a 2-3 percent increase in onsite billing rates for new contracts because of the higher labor costs.

There are no other visa fees to compare this to because there has never been anything in U.S. economic history this exorbitant. That is why I have to go to the next-best proxy: the H-1B cap. The cap is different in that it is a hard limit. Once the cap is reached, there are no new visas. At least with the visa fee, a company could theoretically hire if they are willing to pay the price. However, this high rate will deter H-1B hiring and price many companies out of hiring H-1B recipients, as the JPMorgan Chase estimate indicates. The visa cap and the visa fee are two sides of the same coin because they are government-imposed barriers to the influx of skilled labor. 

I pointed out as early as 2017 what happens when the H-1B supply is restricted: slower innovation, reduced competitiveness, and more offshoring or automation instead of hiring H-1B workers. An economist from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, Michael Clemens, demonstrates in his September 2025 report how beneficial H-1B visas have been. From 1990 to 2010, H-1B visa holders were responsible for 30 to 50 percent of all productivity growth in the United States (Peri et al., 2015). That includes Vinod Dham, the H-1B visa holder who led the team that launched the first Pentium processor. 

It will be the startups and smaller businesses that get harmed the most by this policy. Only the largest firms will be able to afford the fee. For context, the H-1B visa fee prior to Trump's executive order was $1,500, which represents a hike of over 6,500 percent. Legal sponsorship already costs $10,000. Throwing on an additional $100,000 is not going to make companies want to hire domestic employees. 

The visa fee is similar to minimum wage in some ways, although the minimum wage is a more direct cost than the visa fee. Both act as price floors on labor that reduce demand for the affected labor. In both instances, they are advocated for to protect workers, but the result is the opposite. As the Manhattan Institute points out, the visa fee will push employers to offshore technology and research or to automate. Both outcomes will lower U.S. employment, which is contrary to Trump's intent. This is similar to how the minimum wage incentivizes firms to either cut workers' hours, cut workers' benefits, let workers go, or automate. 

The opposite effect is also observable. According to the Partnership for a New American Economy, each H-1B visa recipient results in 1.8 new jobs. This is because H-1B workers often complement U.S. workers to be more productive in such areas as management, design, marketing, and sales. Creating a shortage, much like Trump is doing, will delay projects and reduce the competitiveness of U.S. companies, which undermines the U.S. economy that Trump thinks he is helping. 

The reality is that the H-1B visa program has vast benefits to the U.S. economy. A dynamic economy helps all workers prosper. It is also why Trump's mass deportation causes such negative economic impacts as lower GDP, employment, and wages. Trump would be more effective if he were to focus on education, apprenticeships, or workforce development. Instead, Trump chose a de facto tax on talent that effectively guts the H-1B program. This means the high-skilled workers will go elsewhere, such as Europe, Canada, or Australia. As a result, Trump is starving the United States of global talent instead of making America great again.

Premium in Name Only: The Pricey Truth Behind “Free” Obamacare Under COVID-Era Subsidies

Instead of passing a budget, the United States Congress allowed the government to shut down on October 1, 2025 and has been shut down since. When government shutdowns take place, the federal government limits services and ceases non-essential operations. This is not the first time such a shutdown has occurred. The longest shutdown took place during Trump's first administration in 2018-19 over funding for expanding barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border. The 1995-1996 shutdown under the Clinton administration was over spending cuts, whereas the 2013 shutdown during the Obama administration was about the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). While commonly referred to as the ACA, I prefer calling it Obamacare over the ACA because the ACA did nothing to make healthcare more affordable (see here and here), but we can call it ACA for shorthand purposes. 

Interestingly enough, the lack of affordability under ACA brings us to today because the current shutdown is primarily about ACA. During the COVID pandemic, Congress passed the American Rescue Plan, which included a temporary expansion of the ACA's premium tax credits (PTCs) to help soften the blow of the COVID pandemic. These tax credits, which account for 7 percent of the Americans who use the Obamacare-run insurance marketplace, had these tax credits extended under the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022. There is nothing permanent like a temporary government measure, right? Because now, the Democrats want to extend the Biden-era tax credits yet again, even though the COVID pandemic ended a few years ago. Democrat's commitment to extending the Biden-era tax credits was strong enough that they refused to pass a budget without them. Let us get into why this insistence to maintain the PTCs is short-sighted and make matters worse. 

It is a common talking point from proponents to say that the premiums will more than double if the PTCs expire. While technically true, the claim is also misleading. The PTCs act as a demand-side subsidy, which both artificially increase price and quantity consumed. Consumers are paying less for out-of-pocket premiums, but it does not mean the total cost of healthcare has decreased.  The subsidies, in fact, shift the cost from the individual enrollee to the taxpayer, a distinction that often involves the same individuals. People think it is cheaper because someone else is footing the bill. It is not about making healthcare cheaper, but it is a matter of budgetary sleight-of-hand. 

This subsidy is a classic economic distortion that functions similarly to the employment sponsored insurance tax credit. Since the subsidies scale with premiums, enrollees are insulated from rising costs, while taxpayers bear the increased burden indirectly. As a result, it encourages overinsurance, thereby reducing market discipline and increasing overall healthcare costs because insurers have less pressure to compete on price, thereby creating an upward price spiral (e.g., Cannon, 2022; Powell, 2012). 

The PTC subsidy fuels premium growth, which in turn raises subsidy payments further. The ACA did not contain premium costs. If anything, individual premiums increased much faster than medical care or overall prices since the ACA was written back in 2009. Individual premiums increased by 143 percent compared to 52 percent of medical care costs and 49 percent for overall consumer prices. Here is data from the Center for Health and Economy showing how ACA premiums have increased over time. As a result, healthcare costs rose in a similar way that federal subsidies to college tuition have caused tuition costs to skyrocket. Even before the pandemic and this PTC expansion, ACA premiums had already doubled, despite Obama's promises of family savings. 

What the PTC subsidies do to make the matter worse is that it lowers price sensitivity. Consumers have less incentive to shop around or demand lower-cost care, which undermines competition and encourages inefficiency. This distorts consumer choice signals, creates a moral hazard, and makes healthcare inflation all the worse. Much like I asked last May with regards to Medicaid, what good does it do to fund an insolvent and unsustainable program?  

In addition to the economic theory and reality of demand-side tax credit, expanding the tax credits will not fix the system. It will merely hide their failures behind market distortion and more debt. Speaking of debt, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated last month that extending the PTCs will cost $350 billion over the next decade. Combined with the corresponding interest costs of $60 billion, that brings the total cost to $488 billion over the next decade. This is close to the Paragon Health Institute's estimate of $450 billion. 

To put this into context, the PTCs cover 3.8 million enrollees, which would put the per enrollee cost for the premiums at around $13,000. This is crazy because the average spend for all healthcare per person (not only the premiums) is at around $14,000, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid. If those on Obamacare under the PTCs are spending almost the same amount on premiums alone than the average American spends on overall healthcare, this is hardly an efficient or sustainable use of taxpayer dollars. 

To make matters worse, the legislation for the PTCs removed the 400% of poverty line cap, which means that a large share of subsidy dollars are going to higher-income households. The Cato Institute found that a third of those receiving insurance with these PTCs are above the 400% threshold. Similar to student loan forgiveness, these tax credits go to households that are, on average, better equipped to handle their finances, thereby questioning fairness of the PTCs. If you are arguing now that those at this threshold need subsidies, it is another reason showing us how the ACA has failed at making healthcare more affordable. 

This systemic instability is the sort of phenomenon that makes Obamacare even more unsustainable than it was pre-pandemic. As the Tax Foundation argues, the PTCs are a symptom of showing how federal subsidies and tax preferences in healthcare have increased the cost of healthcare, as well as how the healthcare industry is the most subsidized in the United States. The PTCs are another example of how the top-down model of the ACA has failed the everyday American spectacularly. 

The fight is ultimately not about coverage per se, but how far the government is willing to fund a broken system, a question that could also be asked about Social Security. These COVID-era credits were sold as temporary relief during an emergency. The emergency is long over, but the spending remains. This is hardly a new phenomenon. The Cato Institute calculated that at least $12.5 trillion has been spent on emergency spending since 1991. This also shows why the government needs to stop declaring emergencies to continuously expand government largesse into insolvency. As Milton Friedman once quipped, "nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program," and the PTCs are proving the rule.

The enhanced PTCs do not lower costs, but instead masks the cost increases. Instead of helping the vulnerable, they increasingly benefit higher-income households. Instead of fostering competition, they entrench price-insensitive behavior while rewarding the healthcare insurance industry with corporate welfare. And these premiums come at a cost that exceed the average cost of all healthcare spending. These PTCs are fiscal malpractice disguised as compassion. Do not get me started on how the ACA as a whole increases healthcare costs while receiving less care and fewer options. As I wrote last year, Obamacare has unsurprisingly fulfilled its promises, especially the one about more affordable healthcare. 

In the short run, the PTC expansion under the Inflation Reduction Act should expire because pretending that the PTCs make healthcare more affordable is a dangerous illusion. If we are going to have any serious conversation about how to make the quality of healthcare bette while lowering costs, Congress needs to stop doubling down on the very policies that make the problem of skyrocketing healthcare costs a problem in the first place. I am not going to waste my time to highlight real reform if lawmakers cannot take that first step of recognizing that endlessly expanding subsidies masks the systemic failures that they think they are fixing. First, Congress needs to end the PTC expansion and recognize the role that these subsidies play in artificially increasing healthcare costs. Then we can talk real reform.

Two Years and Home Again: Hostages, Grief, Gratitude, and the Torah’s Timeless Rhythm

October 7, 2023, is a day that will live in infamy in the Jewish world. It was the day that Hamas terrorists came into Israel to kidnap, torture, rape, and murder civilians. Not only were around 1,200 souls taken that day, but over 200 hostages were also kidnapped by Hamas. This was the worst pogrom carried out against the Jewish people since the Holocaust. A few weeks later, the Israeli Defense Forces entered Gaza to fight a war that has been going on for about two years. This past Monday, the remaining hostages captured in 2023 were released. Jews across the world celebrated this day of liberation from captivity. 

What is interesting is that on the Jewish calendar (as opposed to the Gregorian calendar), it was two years between the October 7 attack and the release of the hostages. The pogrom began on the Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah in 2023 and the hostages were sent home shortly before Shemini Artzeret began in 2025, thereby marking the completion of two years. When I went to one of the local Chabad houses in Buenos Aires to celebrate Shemini Artzeret, the Chabad rabbi explained the symbolism of two years in the Torah:

• Two years after the Flood, Noah's grandson, Arpachshad, was born (Genesis 11:10).
• Joseph was thrown into prison and was released two years later (Genesis 41:1).
• When Joseph's brothers were starving because of the famine, it was two years after the famine began that they came to Egypt asking for food (Genesis 45:6).

The Torah understands a rhythm that appears in life all too many times. There is the grief, the waiting, and then the redemption. Paradoxically, these moments of pain are not meant to be mere delays or wallowing in agony. They can become places of spiritual transformation, not by denying the suffering, but deepening our capacity for hope and meaning.

Yes, there is more to celebrate this Simchat Torah than there was last Simchat Torah because the hostages have been released. This is not to say that all is well. Those released from captivity have a long road ahead in terms of healing from the hell that Hamas put them through. There is also the grieving for those who did not survive the ordeal. There are many Jews who did not undergo the hostage situation or fight in the war, but nevertheless feel collective trauma on some level. And that does not even account for the spike in antisemitism worldwide as a result of what has transpired in the Middle East. How can we celebrate when there is still healing that needs to be done and things need to improve? 

We pray for rain on Shemini Artzeret through the Tefilat Geshem (תפלת גשם), but we do not wait for the rain to arrive before celebrating. Renewal begins before things are healed or whole. We move forward and celebrate in spite of the imperfect situation, in no small part because grief and joy are complex, nonlinear processes. This tension between joy and sorry in Jewish tradition is something I explained last year for Passover.

The Jewish wedding is one of the happiest life cycle events. At the same time, we break a glass to commemorate the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. Although the kiddush during Passover represents joy, we also remove a few drops of wine to mourn the loss of the Egyptians having to die during the Ten Plagues. We break the matzah at the beginning of the Passover seder to represent poverty and scarcity. At the end, we find the hidden piece of matzah, the afikomen, that represents redemption. Simchat Torah follows a similar dynamic. It symbolizes renewal because it marks both an end and a beginning. We finish the Torah cycle by reading about Moses' death and we start again by reading about the creation of the universe. We do not wait for everything to be perfect. 

I think an answer is a matter of a paradigm shift, particularly through gratitude. The phrase in Hebrew for gratitude is Hakarat HaTov (הכרת הטוב), which means to recognize the good. We are not meant to ignore the calamity that has befallen the Jewish people as a result of the October 7 attacks. This is about how to focus on appreciation for what we do have and the good that exists in spite of the pain, suffering, injustice, and unfairness that is part of this world. We do not erase the grief, but neither do we allow sorrow to have the final say. 

While changing perspective is important, it is not the final step. In the Passover seder, Jews are to taste bitters herbs not only to experience what the Israelites felt during the Exodus, but also to remind us that bitterness is inevitable in life. Conversely, the sweet mix known as charoset is optional. This teaches us that while bitterness is unavoidable, whether we add sweetness by translating mindset into action is up to us. That is where dancing on Simchat Torah comes into play because it is metaphor for turning a positive attitude into positive action, much like I explained with dipping apples into honey on Rosh Hashanah. 

Dancing on Simchat Torah is not a betrayal of the mourning process, but an act of resilience so quintessentially Jewish to remind us that we do so while carrying joy and grief together. It is an act to make life sweeter. We are meant to be greater than the sum of our pain, hurt, trauma, setbacks, and grief. This dancing reminds us that holiness exists in brokenness and that we are not meant to despair. We do not dance because everything is perfect or resolved. This Simchat Torah, we dance because something has shifted. We have seen a sliver of redemption, something that symbolizes a shift. We dance to honor the memory of those lost. We dance to express gratitude. We celebrate by dancing because what Jews do in the face of adversity is turn mourning into movement, pain into purpose, and suffering into song. In that celebration, we develop a mature sense of joy that reflects the multifaceted nature of life. 

The Veiled Threat: Italy’s Proposed Burqa Ban Won’t Fix Cultural Integration, But It Will Erode Liberty

In times of social tension, politicians often claim they are finding solutions in the name of safety, values, or protecting culture. It is amazing how liberty finds itself on the chopping block when the government pursues such goals. That dynamics is now playing out in Italy. Last week, the Fratelli d'Italia, which is the ruling party in Italy under Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, proposed a "cultural separatist" bill in response to growing concerns over Muslim immigrants. Part of this bill includes a public ban on the burqa and niqab. Anyone caught wearing these garments would be fined anywhere from €300-€1,300. 

While there are various local jurisdictions throughout Europe with such bans, Italy would become the ninth country in Europe with a nationwide burqa ban. Proponents of these bans claim that they promote safety, liberate women from a form of religious oppression, and encourage integration. To be clear, I think Europe generally has had a major issue when it comes to integrating its Muslim immigrants. 

I first expressed my concerns in 2015. A lack of integration of Muslim immigrants was also a takeaway from my 2023 trip to Sweden. As I brought up earlier this year while criticizing the "it is Islamophobic to criticize Islam" argument, the influx of Muslim immigrants in Europe is importing oppressive and authoritarian practices and tendencies to the Western world. It is notable enough that I even question some of my views on immigration, at least contextually as they pertain to what is going on in Europe. That topic deserves its own discussion because I would need to think of how immigration in the U.S. is different from Europe. What I will say is that in spite of my considerable worries about Muslim immigrants not integrating into mainstream European society, a burqa ban is not the solution.  

I already have objections based on how this ban erodes freedom. A TikTok ban in the U.S. was based on "protecting values" or "security." A burqa ban uses similar justifications while giving the state a deeply concerning power over one's body and what one can wear. Unless you can prove a direct harm from a fashion choice, a burqa ban is a considerable violation of bodily autonomy. If a government can tell people what they can wear in the name of security or cultural cohesion, what else can the government dictate? 

At the heart of a liberal and free society is the principle that individuals have the right to live in accordance with their sincerely held religious beliefs, even if those beliefs are not share by the majority or are uncomfortable. Without that freedom, I would not be able to freely practice Judaism. Article 9 of European Convention on Human Rights is supposed to protect this right, even in spite of the European Court of Human Rights upholding such bans. 

Like lockdowns, burqa bans show how governments respond to fear by restricting freedom rather than trusting individuals. All a burqa ban does is set the precedent that individual expression and religious identity can be quashed by majoritarian discomfort. By viewing clothing as a threat, Italy risks the problem of eroding the democratic pluralism it claims to defend. 

I find such a ban to be problematic more than on terms of freedom of expression, bodily autonomy, or freedom of religion. I have criticized bans over the years, showing that government uses bans as a blunt instrument that are prone to backfiring. This was the case with the gas stove ban when it restricted choice while not solving anything of substance. Burqa bans also do not solve anything of substance, particularly when it comes to whether they increase integration. 

One study from Cambridge University (Paul, 2024) covering French and Belgian bans indicates that "A law or regulation that prohibits or governs the wearing of Islamic veils in the public sphere, pressures pious Muslim women (that is, those who habitually wear veils in public) to stay home and to avoid public places." This study also found that a majority of women interviewed reduced their outdoor activities and made them feel like they were living in a jail. Even if some women are pressured into veiling, the solution is not to punish them by further isolating them from public life with a burqa ban. That doubles down on their marginalization.

Another study from Stanford University (Fouka and Abdelgadir, 2020) covered the 2004 France headscarf ban in public schools. The ban does only cover schools, but it does show the backfiring effect, which resulted in discrimination both from non-Muslim peers and Muslim community members who thought the girls were selling out. Muslim girls were shown to have lower rates of completing secondary education and were more likely to repeat courses. 

Then there is a study from the Open Society Foundations interviewing 35 Muslim women showing that a full veil ban resulted in increased mental health issues, isolation, disruption in family life, and avoidance of health services. While much of the evidence of these bans are qualitative in nature and limited in sample size, we are still able to get valuable insight into how these bans directly and negatively affect those most impacted by these bans. The problem with burqa bans is that they result in more alienation than they do assimilation. 

A burqa could represent illiberalism because it sends the message that women should not be seen or that it is a form of systemic subjugation. However, a ban is also an illiberal policy. You cannot fix coercion with another act of coercion. Bans are a broad, coercive, and typically counterproductive policy that disrespects the liberty of individuals to live their own lives. There is no strong evidence that a burqa ban would improve the integration of Muslim immigrants. 

Much like Trump making English an official language, age verification laws, or banning flag burning, a burqa ban is another form of right-wing virtue signaling. It is a costume change masquerading as a cultural fix because it is more concerned with optics than actual outcomes. The main question here is how do we maintain an open, liberal society that welcomes immigrants without becoming illiberal ourselves? 

A few suggestions come to mind. Provide women confidential support services for those who are in religious or cultural pressure situations. Increase legal and police protection for Muslim women who want to integrate and would otherwise face abuse or intimidation. Improve access to education and employment choice, both of which are shown to improve autonomous choice and independence of women. Prosecute the explicitly coercive acts, such as forced marriage and honor violence. Support community outreach and mentorship to break the segregation without banning cultural expression, much like the Migrant Women Mentoring Programme focuses on doing. Provide better training for instructors so they can help migrants learn basic civic, cultural and language skills. 

If your argument is that women are being coerced into wearing the burqa, empowering women with the skills to make their own choices is far more effective than banning clothing. Cultural integration needs to come from a place of education, dialogue, and leadership. Part of that includes criticizing Islamist ideology and influences, as well as rejecting Sharia-based legal frameworks to influence secular law. If attempting cultural integration comes from force, like we have seen in France, all it is going to do is isolate Muslims and increase resentment from Muslims about mainstream society. Criminalizing someone's fashion choices is not going to fix these multifaceted cultural issues, but they will erode freedom in an illiberal fashion in the meantime. 

Trump’s $625 Million Coal Cronyism: Fueling Failure of the Dying Coal Industry

Residential electricity prices have been surging in the United States. Since the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, U.S. citizens have dealt with around a 30 percent increase in electricity prices, according to Energy Information Administration (EIA) data. Such a rise makes it more difficult for the everyday American to afford basic necessities. In line with his presidential campaign promise to lower electricity costs, President Trump has come up with a solution: taxpayer subsidies for coal plants. 

Last week, Trump's Department of Energy announced that it was going to commit $625 million to revitalizing the coal industry, whether it is for recommissioning coal plants, retrofitting coal operations, or for coal power projects aimed at making energy more affordable. For the DOE, this $625 million will help keep "electricity prices low and the lights on without interruption." The press release then said "Coal built the greatest industrial engine the world has ever known, and with President Trump's leadership, it will help do so again." Much like with manufacturing, Trump is clinging to a past that cannot repeat itself in the present moment. 

I understand that $625 million in a $6.8 trillion budget might seem like a small amount to quibble over in the grand scheme of things. If Trump ramping up tariffs or immigration policies shows anything, it is that his subsidies could plausibly go beyond the initial $625 million. However, it is a matter both of principle and the fact that this amount will still cause economic harm to the everyday American. Let us set aside for the moment that this $625 million will be paid by taxpayers to benefit utilities and coal companies. The bigger question is whether it is worth spending money on salvaging the coal industry. 

As I pointed out in 2017, the U.S. coal industry is on the decline. EIA data show that this trend has continued since my 2017 piece. Why is that the case? On some level, environmental regulations have gotten in the way of the coal industry market expansion. However, the main factors behind coal's decline are market-based, as this report from the Cato Institute illustrates. Demand for coal has declined in no small part due to natural gas and renewable energy becoming less costly to produce, not to mention the development of such storage solutions as lithium-ion battery storage and iron-air batteries. As the demand for clean energy continues to increase, coal demand will continue to decline. 

While the subsidy targets supply by bolstering coal infrastructure, its effects could ripple into the demand side if utilities are nudged to favor coal through capacity contracts or guaranteed purchases. In theory, it could arguably decrease price while increasing supply. However, that will probably not happen. 

Coal plants are uneconomical relative to natural gas and renewable energy, especially given that about a quarter of coal plants are expected to retire within the next four years. According to financial services firm Lazar in its 2025 report on energy costs, coal costs $69-168/MWh, which is more than natural gas ($48-$107 MWh), solar ($38-78/MWh) and wind ($37-86/MWh). 

This subsidy would most likely create a crowding out effect that makes it harder to develop alternative energy sources. This has happened before with fossil fuel subsidies crowding out renewable energy (Monasterolo and Raberto, 2019). This takes place because energy subsidies "adversely affect price signals and lead to misallocation of resources" (Hartono et al., 2020). Even the Right-leaning Heritage Foundation, which is generally pro-coal, recognizes that coal subsidies calcify the industry and stymie technological progress for coal. 

We should not be allocating taxpayer dollars to a dying industry. Biden threw billions at green and renewable energy, which I also criticized. Trump is now doing the same with coal. Regardless of political affiliation, the government has no business in subsidizing energy, especially if the goal is to keep energy prices low. We can delve into regulations in the coal industry and what their effects are on energy prices, pollution, etc. Odds are that if I scrutinized each regulation individually (see 2017 example here), I would most probably conclude that the government should regulate less than more, although you never know. Even so, if the idea is to let market forces determine which energy source is best, that also means that the government should not be using subsidies or any price supports instead of picking favorites. If nostalgia powered the electric grid, coal would be king. That is not how economic reality works. Propping up coal would only burn through taxpayer money while doing nothing to lower prices.  

The Wealth of Wanting Less: Sukkot’s Ancient Answer to Modern-Day Joy

A few months ago, I quit a stressful job that was not serving my professional needs or my desire to help out others with data and analysis. I put the vast majority of my possessions in a storage unit. I went to go visit a friend out West I had not seen for six years. We were able to catch up and create new memories. I then went to Peru for a month and now I find myself in Buenos Aires celebrating the Jewish holidays. I have spent the past few months living out of nothing but a duffel bag and a backpack. It is as minimalist as I could be without living on the street. Yes, I have learned a number of life lessons since I quit my job. One of the most resonating lessons is how few possessions I actually need. I am not a particularly materialistic person. I mostly own books, clothes, and dishes. I do not even own a car. This nomadic experience helped me realize that less is more. So what does this have to do with the Jewish harvest festival of Sukkot? 

The Sukkah as a Teaching Device

The world is unstable, unfair, unpredictable, and filled with things or people that can cause harm.  Humans have a propensity to control because we think it will bring us security. I am not an exception because relinquishing a need to control at such a level is part of my teshuvah process this High Holidays season. We accumulate because we think it makes us happy or it provides a sense of security.  The sukkah, which is the temporary dwelling during Sukkot, challenges that concept. During Sukkot, Jews leave their secure homes for a flimsy sukkah that is open to the sky and exposed to the elements of Mother Nature. This holiday is called "a time of our joy." We are meant to find joy in having less, not more. 

Material Excess Causes Problems

This claim that material excess causes problems is going to make some heads spin. We are bombarded with advertisements that hammer the idea in our heads that happiness is buying a bunch of material possessions. Unless we have the latest iPhone, car, or article of clothing, advertising does its darnedest to condition that we are not enough. It lends itself to social comparison, making us feel inadequate or that others are better off. What societal conditioning teaches us is that buying more can ward off that comparison or not feeling like enough. It teaches that joy has to be bought or earned in order to be experienced. 

While it is tantalizing, Jewish tradition teaches us "the more possessions, the more worry" (Pirke Avot 2:7). This one could use some explanation. There is a Midrash that teaches that if you put 50 plagues on one side and poverty on the other, poverty outweighs them all. There is something to be said about having one's basic needs covered, such as food, clothing, and shelter. Once you surmount poverty, then it gets trickier. 

Yes, money is a means to fulfill certain dreams. I would not be able to travel around Latin America if I did not have money. One study shows that while more money improves life evaluation (which is how people think about their life), emotional well-being levels off at around the $75,000 figure in 2010 dollars (Kahneman and Deaton, 2010), which would be about $111,000 in 2025 dollars. In other words, money does not make your day-to-day emotions significantly better once your basic needs are met. 

On the other hand, there is a reason why the U.S. Declaration of Independence says we should have "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness," and not happiness itself. Science shows that there is a negative correlation between materialism and well-being (e.g., Li, 2025; Teng et al., 2022; Górnik-Durose, 2019), whether that is lower life satisfaction, higher anxiety, or increased depression. As one accumulates more possessions, one has to guard and protect them due to fear of loss (Bartenura, commentary on Pirkei Avot 2:7). This sort of fear, anxiety, and attachment to material possessions can erode spiritual life (Maharal). 

Social comparison also reduces happiness and well-being because it breeds envy, lowers self-esteem, and creates a sense of scarcity (e.g., Liao, 2021; Liu and Wang, 2016; Hagerty, 2000). There is also the classic study comparing lottery winners to paralyzed accident victims (Brickman et al., 1978) in which the respective events affect happiness, but eventually hedonic adaptation kicks in and what used to feel like "enough" becomes the new norm. In Ecclesiastes (2:10-11), King Solomon acquired mass wealth and still called it a vanity because of this hedonic adaptation. 

Modern-day science affirms the Jewish assertion that abundance of material wealth and focusing on that material wealth bring anxiety, clutter, and the pressure to maintain an image. 

What Works Instead of Materialism

If buying a bunch of stuff is not the answer, then what is the key to happiness? Remember that bit about "more possessions, more worry"? The second half of that portion in Pirke Avot 2:7 provides an antidote: "If one has acquired Torah, one is increased in wisdom; if one has acquired a good friend, one is increased in good; if one has acquired a good neighbor, one is increased in peace." You do not have to be Jewish to understand this concept. It is about improving one's wisdom, one's sense of ethics, and improving interpersonal relationships, or in short, the intangibles. This concept lines up with studies showing that experiences typically provide stronger more lasting happiness than material wealth (Kumar et al., 2020; Weidman and Dunn, 2016; Van Boven and Gilovich, 2003).

Pirke Avot gives us another antidote (4:1): "Who is rich? One who rejoices in their lot." Richness is not about wanting more of what you do not have. It is in part wanting less, but more importantly it is about accepting and appreciating what you do have. Rabbeinu Yonah's commentary suggests that one could have a multitude of material possessions but never feel satisfied. This is not to say that rich people are unhappy, but that material possessions do not guarantee happiness. To quote Ecclesiastes 5:9, "He who loves silver will not be happy with silver." 

This is not a piece saying that all material possessions are bad, that money is evil, or that the only way to be happy is to live with bare bone essentials. It is about shifting one's perception of wealth from what one has (or does not have) to defining it by one's capacity to appreciate what one does have. It means saying "more would be nice, but it is not a prerequisite for joy." It means being satisfied with your lot, not someone else's. Sukkot invites us into that mindset each year: to step away from a false sense of permanence and into simplicity. It helps us rediscover how little we actually need to feel whole. 

Traveling with merely a duffle bag and a backpack, I have not had so few material possessions on hand during my adult life. Yet I have a sense of personal and spiritual fullness that I have not felt in years. It does not mean that I will donate all my possessions when I get back to the United States and go all minimalist. It means that I measure wealth differently and that I appreciate the non-tangibles a lot more, whether that is a meaningful conversation, helping out others or a good, long laugh with a friend. That sort of richness does not fade or break. Perhaps that is the truest form of joy out there.

Post-Yom Kippur Thoughts on Honesty, Courage, and the Call to Return

Today, I completed my first Yom Kippur outside of the United States. While I observed the fast in Buenos Aires and did so in the spring instead of the fall, the imagery of Yom Kippur does not change. One of the most vivid images is depicted in the liturgical poem Unetaneh Tokef. The imagery of the Book of Life grapples with the ultimate question who lives and who dies. Not all of us make it another year. No matter how hard we try, there is a chance this year could be our last. There are things that we cannot control, whether they are natural disasters, pandemics, traffic accidents, or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. While we live in a world where plenty is out of our control, this poem also reminds us that we are meant to do what is within our control. 

The poem Unetaneh Tokef gives us three interrelated tools: praying, giving money to worthy causes, or making up for previous mistakes. It is this last one, teshuvah (תשובה), that I would like to focus on today. While commonly translated as "repentance," it comes from the Hebrew verb "to return" (לשוב). We return to our truest, best selves: who we are meant to be. How in the world do we do that? In order to know where to go in any journey, whether physical or spiritual, you need to know where the starting point is so you can head in the right direction to your destination or destinations. In this case, to understand your starting point, you need to know where you are emotionally, mentally, and spiritually. Without that, you simply end up wandering. 

For teshuvah to work, you need to remove the mental fog, which includes the ego. As I explained last week for Rosh Hashanah, my former rabbi described this phenomenon as the "Avimelech Syndrome." This syndrome was his way of saying that excuse-making, shifting blame, and rationalizing behavior get in the way of this internal work. As long as one succumbs to the Avimelech Syndrome, it will be impossible to move forward spiritually. It is akin to having the brakes on a car or an anchor on a ship and expecting to make any significant movement. 

At the Chabad house where I attended services for Yom Kippur, the rabbi told a Chassidic story about the Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev. Rabbi Levi Yitzchak saw a man smoking on Yom Kippur. When asked why he was smoking, the man replied that he knew it was Yom Kippur and that he knew that Jewish law prohibits smoking on Yom Kippur, but he was doing it anyways. The man who was smoking was not lying or making excuses. He admitted the truth plainly and honestly. It is not a story told to excuse inappropriate or morally problematic behavior. Rather, it is a stark contrast to the Avimelech Syndrome because we need that level of radical honesty to open ourselves to spiritual growth. Why? Because to reiterate, if you do not know where you are at, how do you know where you are going or how to get there? 

Once you remove those spiritual blinders, you have to take inventory of your failures and shortcomings without deflections or excuses. To quote G.I. Joe, knowing is half the battle. While it is common for Jewish tradition to go through the errors, I had expressed concern two years ago that focusing only on one's mistakes can lead to despair or paralysis. That is why it is important to also focus on our strengths and the good that we did in the previous year, especially given the human tendency towards negativity bias. By holding contrition and celebration in tension, we can have a balanced view and the motivation to do the work of teshuvah. 

However, to paraphrase and infer from the G.I. Joe quote, there is another half of that battle. If teshuvah is to be complete, it cannot merely be Yom Kippur service performance. The goal of teshuvah is transformation, and that takes even more courage than facing what your emotional baggage is. That transformation does not happen by mere confession that is then put on the back burner for another year. Real teshuvah involves acknowledgment of wrongdoing without excuses; making clear commitments to change; structural repair and recompense (if one harmed another); and finally resolving not to return to the same patterns that resulted in the initial error, mistake, or wrongdoing (Maimonides, Hilchot Teshuvah, Chapter 2). 

As I pointed out last week, the beauty of teshuvah is that we are not defined by our worst moments and that our past does not dictate our future. We do not have to succumb to old patterns and our futures are not predetermined. The spiritual capacity to change and to return to our truest selves is within our grasp. The question is whether we will seize the moment or not.

Jimmy Kimmel, Net Neutrality, and Why the FCC’s Control of Speech and Broadband Must End

The murder of conservative political activist and author Charlie Kirk sent shockwaves through the United States because it showed how fragile freedom of speech is in the United States. A few days after Kirk's murder, comedian Jimmy Kimmel joked on his late-night show that Trump supporters were trying to paint Kirk's murderer as liberal to score political points. It does not matter that Kirk's murderer was indeed on the Far Left. The Trump administration did not appreciate Kimmel's jab. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Brendan Carr threatened ABC's network broadcasting license. One could argue that this move is hypocritical considering that in 2019, Carr said that "the FCC does not have a roving mandate to police speech in the name of the 'public interest.'"

A day later, ABC suspended Kimmel. The suspension was lifted a few days later. Kimmel came back on the air to talk about using anti-American tactics to suppress freedom of speech. While I do not appreciate threats from the FCC, I also have to question Kimmel's sincerity about freedom of speech when he cheered on the cancellations of President Trump from Twitter, Roseanne Barr, or Tucker Carlson. Whether Kimmel came around on the First Amendment and realizes that he took it for granted or his passion for freedom of speech only extends to himself and those who agree with him remains to be seen. Irrespective of whether Kimmel became a free speech advocate after being suspended, this suspension debacle brings up a question about freedom of speech and the FCC's role in broadcasting regulation. 

For those of you who think that FCC censorship is some unprecedented move with President Trump, it truly is not. The government has exerted its top-down control of the airwaves since the 1927 Radio Act, which predates the creation of the Federal Communications Commission in 1934. Shortly after the FCC's founding, President Franklin Roosevelt used the FCC to target and silence conservative broadcasters who opposed his New Deal. That is one of the many reasons I dislike what FDR did during his presidency. If the modern Left cannot tolerate Trump criticizing journalist or using the FCC to imply ABC loses its license, then surely they cannot ignore how FDR wielded the FCC in an authoritarian manner. Regardless, the FCC's abuse did not stop with FDR.

In 1943, the Supreme Court ruled in NBC v. United States that the government can regulate network broadcasting practices to prevent monopolies and ensure that they served the "public interest, convenience, or necessity." We would never allow for the government to monitor our phone calls to determine if our conversations are fair, balanced, or responsible. Yet that is exactly what this court case allows the FCC to do with public communication. 

While the "Fairness Doctrine" started in 1949, it was particularly used by Presidents Johnson and Nixon to target critics of their policies. Nixon was the most blatant abuser by using license challenges as leverage to get broadcasters to back off on criticizing Nixon. This Doctrine remained in place until Reagan eliminated it in 1987. These examples show that politicization of the FCC is not a recent phenomenon, but rather a recurring feature in FCC history. Because NBC v. United States has not been overturned, the FCC still retains those broad powers to this very day. 

The same 20th-century mindset of media being scarce and the public needing gatekeepers also underlies what I discussed last month with taxpayer funding for such outlets as NPR and PBS. When airwaves were limited and national programming was costly, public media had a stronger case relative to now. However, in a world of podcasts, YouTube, and livestreams, the idea that the government should bankroll a certain media outlet is outdated. We did not need a state-approved version of "quality content" then, and we sure do not need it now. Regardless of whether it is through regulation or subsidy, the belief that speech needs Big Government to guide it is both misguided and dangerous, even more so in a digital age. 

What makes the FCC more onerous is not simply what is being said, but it seeks to control how information flows in the digital age. The net neutrality debate is a prime example of the FCC exerting that control. What net neutrality ends up being is a one-size-fits-all mandate that degrades broadband quality, reduces innovation, and undermines the very decentralization that made the internet a haven for free expression. 

Net neutrality is a government mandate requiring internet service providers (ISPs) to treat all online content equally, regardless of source, type of bandwidth demand. While presented as a way to level the playing field, it is a backdoor for the FCC to control online discourse. By dictating internet traffic be treated equal, the FCC statutorily places itself as the arbiter of what constitutes "fair" access. This is because the FCC has used "reasonable network management" in its 2010, 2015, and 2024 Open Internet Orders. Combined with vague definitions of what constitutes as "reasonable" with the precedent NBC v. United States ruling, it would give regulators the legal ambiguity and institutional cover to micromanage internet traffic under the guise of neutrality. Similar to how the FCC has suppressed dissenting voices on the radio and television, net neutrality opens the door for similar abuses on the internet. 

If it was not enough that net neutrality has implications for the First Amendment, its impact on broadband service is equally disconcerting. This was something I explored in further detail last year. Net neutrality does not level the playing field or improve broadband services. Because it operates under the outdated Title II regulations, it wrongfully treats the internet as a public utility, which I argued in 2017. As a result, it discourages private investment in broadband and stifles innovation. Ultimately, net neutrality translates into slower and less reliable internet. Instead of government heavy-handedness, the internet needs a market-centric approach if we want faster and more accessible internet for all. Thankfully, the Sixth Circuit court reversed the Biden administration's most recent attempt at net neutrality. The fact that these court cases need to be have due to these power grabs show how much power has been granted to the FCC.

The FCC was created for a different world. We do not live with a media landscape that has limited bandwidth, top-down broadcasting, and government-engineered fairness. Our information ecosystem is fast, global, decentralized, and wildly abundant. Yet the FCC operates with a mindset that there are only three main television stations and Franklin D. Roosevelt still sits in the White House. Whether it is censoring content, dictating how ISPs route traffic, or overseeing digital speech, the agency treats the flow of information as something to be managed in a top-down fashion. This approach is a threat to both liberty and innovation.

This is not merely a matter of outdated bureaucracy using frameworks and regulations that no longer fit today's ever-evolving media landscape. It is a more profound issue on how government shapes speech. It does not matter if you agree with Kimmel or not. Political disagreements should be settled with speech and in the intellectual marketplace, not through state intimidation or licensing threats. While I have criticized Left-wing cancel culture extensively (see here, here, here, and here), this is a disturbing trend in the political Right adopting that same authoritarian impulse. Using the FCC to silent dissent is the exact sort of tactic that Charlie Kirk would have opposed and is probably having him roll over in his grave as we speak. The Right should not succumb to these tactics because free speech is one of those core values that we should uphold in a modern, democratic society. 

It is not simply because the government is prone to abusing its power to regulate freedom of speech. The government has set the dangerous precedent that our freedoms, including the freedom of speech, is something that the government gives us, rather than being something they have no right to take away in the first place. Both the Left and Right need to remember that the power to silence your political opponents today could be used against their side in the future, and often more aggressively and with fewer restraints. The fact that speech has had this much oversight from the FCC is surreal. The FCC does not merely need reform. Whether it is because of freedom of speech concerns or practical ones, it needs to meet its demise to make speech free again and make sure everyone has high-quality access to broadband services. 

The Fiction of Palestinian Statehood: Why Recognition Is a Dangerous Illusion

I am sure that pro-Palestine activists are feeling hopeful this week. In a matter of days, there were multiple Western democracies that recognized Palestinian statehood, including Australia, Canada, France, Portugal, and the United Kingdom. This recognition is being hailed as "long overdue" and a "bold diplomatic move." Beneath the ceremonial language and moral grandstanding lies a more profound issue about accountability, legitimacy, morality, and what it means to truly be a state. Having Western democracies recognize Palestinian statehood does nothing to erase these realities, as we will see shortly. 

Recognizing Palestine Will Not Incentivize Good Behavior

I want to start with this point because it is the underpinning argument for such a move. Many in diplomatic circles believe in Palestinian statehood as a moral imperative that will help foster a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine. The argument goes that by recognizing Palestinian statehood, Palestine will decide to play ball and work towards peace. The reality is that recognition without asking for any behavioral change on Palestine's part removes any incentive for it to reform or change, whether that is a demand to disarm, release the hostages, hold elections, reform its education to stop demonizing Jews, or make a concerted commitment to co-exist with Israel. Why implement reform when statehood is being handed to you on a silver platter?  

The idea that the "incentivize good behavior" theory will not end well is not mere conjecture. During the Oslo Peace Accords and the subsequent Camp David Accords, the Palestinian Authority received much of what they requested. They were granted semi-autonomy, international funding, and diplomatic legitimacy in exchange for peace. What resulted? Continued rejection of peace, massive corruption, and a second Intifada. 

Hamas is worse than Fatah. Aside from calling for the extermination of Israel in its initial 1988 charter, Hamas explicitly opposed the Oslo Accords, carried out atrocities, rejected negotiations, and has called for the destruction of Israel. In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza to give them a chance to create a state. Gaza was given about two decades to establish a semblance of self-governance. What transpired? Hamas, a terrorist organization, takes over Gaza. Since then, Israel is barraged with rockets and multiple skirmishes with Hamas, and the October 7 attacks in which Hamas kidnapped, raped, tortured, and murdered civilians. The October 7 attacks is the reason why there is presently a war in Gaza. They could have chosen to live peacefully alongside Israel. Instead, it opted to build terror tunnels and focus on exterminating the only Jewish state with war and violence.

These are Palestinian case studies in how appeasement backfires spectacularly. They are also indicative of a larger pattern in the Middle Eastern conflict that dates back to 1948: Belligerent Arab entities attack Israel, Israel fights back in self-defense, Israel wins, Arab entities cry foul when they lose for trying to wipe Israel off the map, rinse and repeat.

Why would a new round of rewards suddenly change their incentive to behave properly? Recognizing Palestinian statehood rewards the absence of political reforms and the commission of human rights abuses against Israelis. In recognizing Palestinian statehood, it sends the message that you do not need to take responsibility or enact political reforms. It means that statehood can be recognized through bloodshed, terrorism, and rejecting your neighbor's right to exist. A worst-case scenario could be a precedent that incentivizes other aspiring states to use violence and bloodshed as a political strategy for future state recognition instead of accountability.

What Exactly Is Being Recognized?

With 156 countries recognizing Palestine as a state, I imagine you are wondering how I could possibly call it a farce or a delusion to recognize a Palestinian state. In part, recognizing Palestine is a classic example of argumentum ad numerum, which is the logical fallacy in which something is claimed to be true simply because a majority of people believe it. Simply because countries declare recognition of a Palestinian state does not make it so. 

While not binding globally, the Montevideo Convention is the most widely accepted legal framework for what constitutes statehood. It is important to apply those same objective standards to would-be states. In Article I, the Convention lays out four criteria: a defined territory; a single, functioning government; capacity to enter into foreign relations; permanent population. The supposed state of Palestine fails on at least three of those criteria. How so?

Defined territory - The West Bank and Gaza are territorially disconnected. The West Bank is governed by the PA (with partial Israeli control, depending on the Area of the West Bank), whereas Gaza is governed by Hamas. Also, there is no universally agreed upon definition of the border because they are disputed territories. 

Single functioning government - Which entity does the Western world recognize exactly? There never has been a sovereign Arab state called Palestine, and there is presently no coherent state. Neither Fatah nor Hamas have complete control over the territory, which is more important considering that the two factions are ideologically and militarily opposed to one another. The Palestinian Authority (PA) lost control over Gaza in 2007. Hamas rules Gaza, but because of its terrorist designation in multiple countries, is not a legitimate governing body under international norms. Abbas is in Year 19 of a four-year term, and he needs to rely on external funding and Israeli security to function. 

Diplomatic relations - Hamas cannot conduct international diplomacy due to being diplomatically isolated with its terrorist designation. While the PA has observer status at the United Nations, it lacks full diplomatic recognition. Between its internal divisions, donor dependency, and lack of institutional coherence, the PA is unable to effectively conduct diplomatic relations. International recognition of a state should follow institutional legitimacy, not the other way around. 

This is not an argument about Palestinian self-determination, although that could be another conversation for another time. This is about whether the entity known as Palestine in its current form is capable of such recognition. Statehood is not merely symbolic, but institutional. Palestine does not have defined borders, a unified government, or the institutional capacity to behave like a responsible member of the international community. Recognizing a state that does not exist in functional terms is as sensical as recognizing the statehood of Narnia. 

Recognition, in this case, is not sovereignty, but rather performative. It does not grant control over borders, airspace, security, or economic independence. Palestine remains a fragmented, dependent, and divided figment of the imagination as far as international relations are concerned. Diplomatic recognition cannot replace actual governance or territorial authority. 

Symbolic Recognition Undermines Real Diplomacy

If the goal is to help the Palestinian people, this is a lousy way of going about it. I do not say so simply because recognizing Palestinian statehood will do nothing to stop the fighting in light of the fact that Israel views this as too existential without seeing an actual good-faith effort from the other side. State recognition does not empower the moderates or the ones that would actually like to engage in a two-state solution. It entrenches Hamas and Fatah, the powers that have prolonged the conflict. The October 7 attacks were not a one-time outlier. They are part of a decades-long pattern of aggression and rejectionism towards the state of Israel, a pattern that symbolic recognition does nothing to break. 

By recognizing a state without actual governance or a peace agreement, it turns statehood into an empty gesture. Bypassing negotiations with state recognition removes leverage, thereby deepening division instead of resolving it. In short, it short-circuits the peace process instead of engendering it. If anything, it gives corrupt and violent actors the ability to pose as legitimate governments while perpetuating the conflict and oppressing its own people. Diplomacy without standards is merely performative. 

Symbolic Recognition Shows Western Moral Confusion

Recognizing Palestinian statehood creates a catch-22 argument. If Palestine is to be recognized as a state, it means that by definition, they must be held accountable as a state. After all, if they merit statehood, then they are sovereign enough to be held accountable for carrying out the October 7 attacks against Israel, thereby instigating this current war. If the developed world absolves them of responsibility, that means that by the standards of international law, Palestine does not meet the threshold for statehood. If the leadership is not responsible, they are not functioning as a state, which begs the question of why recognize their statehood in the first place. 

Statehood is more than airing a grievance; it is about moral and institutional legitimacy. You cannot have it both ways by demanding statehood while absconding from the responsibilities of statehood. This would mean that Palestine is not held to any standards while Israel is held to mythical double standards. 

By recognizing Palestinian statehood, these nations have shown how morally insincere they are. They say they want peace, but they cannot grapple with the consequences of legitimizing the terrorist organization Hamas or the fact that even Fatah does not want to have Jews in their midst. Ultimately recognizing statehood is to legitimize a dysfunctional, violent, and unaccountable leadership. Granting statehood would promote neither peace, justice, nor reform. It acts as a signal to bad actors that violence and bloodshed are acceptable forms of political strategy. This level of appeasement from Western powers will only perpetuate an unfortunate predicament in the Middle East.