DOGE at One Month: Examining Its Tameness on Tackling Government Efficiency

DOGE. Department of Government Efficiency. What started out as a noncommittal remark by President Trump and a half-serious tweet from billionaire Elon Musk has made multiple rounds of the news cycle since Trump's initial executive order brought it to life one month ago from today. Initially, DOGE was created to modernize government-wide software and infrastructure. An executive order issued on February 11 extended that power to workforce optimization, including letting go of hundreds of federal workers. Critics believe that DOGE is an unconstitutional power grab that is going to dismantle the United States government. Proponents believe that DOGE will overhaul federal bureaucracy and bring sanity to profligate government spending and largesse. Which depiction is closer to the truth? 

Since Trump won the 2024 election, I called for the abolishment of the Department of Education, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Furthermore, condensing ministries was part of Argentinean President Javier Milei's plan to reduce government spending. As a result of his plan, he was able to generate a surplus for the first time in over a decade. It is likely that Milei's chainsaw approach to government inspired Elon Musk. In concept, I agree with having a bureaucratic agency focused on making government more efficient. The question is whether DOGE has been successful or will succeed, legal and constitutional challenges notwithstanding. 

DOGE claims that it has already saved the taxpayers $55 billion so far. When accounting for some preexisting improper entries, duplicate entries, and other federal accounting nuances, the figure is closer to $8 billion. DOGE has mainly targeted low-hanging fruit, particularly with waste and fraud. DOGE's workforce optimization is not much better. 

The rule of "one in, four out" for the federal workforce sounds drastic, but it does not do as much as one would think. The military as well as those in law enforcement, public safety, or immigration enforcement are exempt. That exempts 60 percent of the federal workforce. Plus, even if you cut half the federal workforce, the $150-175 billion in savings would not make a sufficient dent to tackle the $2 trillion deficit. 

And that is part of the point. The national deficit for year-to-date is $700 billion. To avoid that deficit spending, we would need to eliminate the Department of Education and USAID five times over. To avoid adding debt and bring a balanced budget, we would need to eliminate the equivalent of ED and USAID thirteen times over. That is how staggering U.S. government spending is! While one could argue that DOGE's spending cuts are worthwhile, they are modest in comparison to the large scale of government spending. 

As the Cato Institute brings up, trying to make government more efficient misses the mark. Why? There are aspects of government that cannot intrinsically be run efficiently, which is why there are multiple parts of federal government that should not exist at all. If you cannot scrap or at least greatly reduce the size of given government agencies, waste and inefficiency will ensue. 

This Cato Institute report to DOGE gets at how to address major cuts to the federal budget. If DOGE does not tackle the major three drivers of the federal budget, which are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, what DOGE can do to make the federal budget great again is minimal. 

This brings up a final point from Reason Magazine, which is that DOGE cannot go in and do it alone. Short of abolishing the Constitution, DOGE will need Congress' help to get the job done because Congress pulls the purse strings and Congress is responsible for determining the scope of the executive branch's activities. Given that Congress can barely pass stop-gap temporary funding, never mind pass all its required bills (last time it did that was 1996), I will not hold my breath in Congress getting its act together to help DOGE with its mission. Without lasting structural reform, DOGE is at best a distraction from the real issues facing the federal budget. 

Trump Didn't Learn From His Steel & Aluminum Tariffs Failures During His First Term

President Trump is not letting up on his trade war. Earlier this month, Trump threatened China, as well as U.S. allies Mexico and Canada, with tariffs. A little over a week ago, Trump decided to implement a 25 percent tariff on all steel and aluminum tariffs, which will take effect in mid-March. 

I roll my eyes not simply because of how unpleasant tariffs are in economic theory. We have already been down this path. At the beginning of Trump's first term, Trump implemented a 10 percent tariff on aluminum and a 25 percent tariff on steel. In 2017, I criticized Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs, scrutinizing his national security argument vis-à-vis Section 232 while pointing out how poorly they worked out when President George W. Bush implemented similar tariffs in 2002. It turns out I was right. 

What was the end result of those steel and aluminum tariffs from Trump's first term? As I detailed last year, less export growth, a lower GDP, the 1,000 steel manufacturing jobs gained caused a reduction in manufacturing employment by 75,000 workers, not to mention more expensive steel and aluminum prices (24 and 31.1 percent, respectively). And guess who paid those higher prices? It was not China, but rather U.S. consumers. Last week, the Cato Institute also highlighted several studies that showed these undesirable effects. Here are some highlights:

• The American Action Forum showed the direct cost of the tariffs ended up being $4.6 billion annually (Lee and Varas, 2022).
• In its 2023 report, the U.S. International Trade Commission calculated that the tariffs caused a) a decline in downstream production of $3.5 billion, and b) that steel and aluminum prices increased an additional 2.4 and 1.6 percent, respectively. 
• The Center for Automotive Research found that his tariffs created a deadweight loss of $4.3 billion, and that the few jobs that the tariffs managed to save cost a whopping $635,000 per annum (Schultz et al., 2019).

Trump does not seem to understand the ripple effect this will have in the U.S. economy. As the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) shows, there are way many more construction workers that use steel, as well as transportation and packing jobs that use aluminum, than the jobs protected by the tariffs. Reason Magazine reminds us that for every job in aluminum manufacturing, there are 177 jobs in downstream aluminum-consuming industries. 

Reason Magazine also brings up the point that this will harm the energy sector because nuclear power plants are built with steel, carbon steel forges and aluminum tubular products are commonly used to extract oil and gas, steel makes up 69 percent of a wind turbine's mass, and aluminum accounts for 85 percent of solar power components. You want to know what that will mean? Energy prices are going to increase because of these tariffs. 

Right now, Standard and Poor's and the Tax Foundation preliminarily believe that the effects on GDP will be less than 0.1 percent. That might sound like giving Trump a reason to celebrate, but I am not holding my breath. Aside from the lousy history of steel tariffs in this country, there is still concern about how this will affect downstream industries. Standard and Poor's also surmises that the effects will be larger if these tariffs end up triggering trade retaliation, which is certainly plausible given how Canada and Mexico were ready to retaliate with Trump's other tariffs this presidential term. 

There are two reasons to believe the effects of the tariffs will be worse this time around. One, the aluminum tariffs were only 10 percent the first time around. Now, it will be 25 percent. The second one is that the administration has made clear that in contrast to the first term, there will be no exemptions this time around. To emphasize this point, these steel and aluminum tariffs from Trump's first term did not help with national security nor did they boost the economy. How many tariffs will it take for the Tariff Man to finally get the hint that tariffs harm American consumers and businesses?

Why the Government Should Shut Down USAID Permanently

Trump is shaking up the world of international development. On Trump's first day in office, he used an executive order to pause all foreign development for the next 90 days pending review. On February 1, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) website was down. Last week, Trump announced that he is going to fire 95 percent of USAID staff, although it looks like a federal judge has at least been able to pause the order for the time being. All of this made me wonder about whether USAID should be shut down. I will start with some example of USAID mismanaging money to get the conversation going:

• Starting in 2015, USAID spent $280 million on a program intended to empower 75,000 Afghani women and help them find jobs in the Afghani workforce. How many women did USAID end up helping? According to a report from the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR), anywhere between 0 and about 60 women. 
• According to a SIGAR report, part of $1.46 billion in USAID funds that was meant to divert from opium production "inadvertently" funded poppy production. This on top of the $335 million in USAID for a power plant that was almost never used, $175 million spent on roads that were washed away within a month by a flood, and $7.7 million on an industrial park that had no power (SIGAR).
• As Bloomberg reported last year, USAID gave $29 million to an orphanage for Kenyan children. While it sounds noble to help orphans affected by AIDS, it also turned out that the orphanage who received this money embroiled in a major sex abuse scandal. 
• Then there is the matter of USAID funding the terrorist organization Hamas. The Middle East Forum identified $164 million in grants that went to radical organizations. The problem is bad enough where the USAID's Inspector General has expressed concern that there are lax vetting mechanisms with the oversight of aid going to Gaza. 
• USAID's Global Health Supply Chain program was a $9.5 billion program created to improve a country's ability to obtain medical supplies. It was supposed to be so effective that there would never need to be such foreign aid intervention again. What happened? Most shipments were not completed on time in the initial stages. Even when they got better with shipping items, there were still considerable delays. As this report from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism details, the program was riddled with fraud, undelivered supplies, and certainly did not help countries manage their own medical supplies and equipment supply chains.

Perhaps this list is damning enough. Perhaps we have to look at both the good and bad that USAID has done before making a determination. I am sure that proponents can highlight such program as its work in preventing and treating HIV/AIDS in multiple developing countries, the President's Malaria Initiative, or fighting tuberculosis. There is also USAID's Feed the Future program, which according to its own outcome monitoring, decreased extreme poverty from 7 to 36 percent. 

One could argue that USAID should still exist but still go under considerable reform, as the list of debacles above shows. However, I have a meta-argument about why we should not have an entire government agency devoted to foreign aid. When making this argument, I make the distinction between foreign aid and humanitarian assistance, the latter of which is a targeted, short-term form of aid (e.g., food, water, medical care, protection, shelter), typically in response to natural disasters or man-made disasters in war zones. 

As I detailed in 2016, trade liberalization does a lot better of a job of helping out those suffering in developing countries than foreign aid does. Furthermore, foreign aid has a negative impact on political institutions and democratization, as a World Bank study concluded (Djankov et al., 2007). As I have argued before, corruption erodes economic development. By using foreign aid to perpetuate weak political institutions, USAID undermines its long-term goals of bringing prosperity. 

As Cato Institute scholar Ian Vázquez points out, economic development is not a top-down process, as is implied by USAID's wealth transfers to poorer countries. The Cato Institute points out in its Handbook for Policymakers that foreign aid does not address the byzantine regulations and red tape, the trade protectionism, price controls, nationalization of industries, restrictions on investment, or inflationary monetary policy. As such, foreign aid keeps developing countries in a state of misery by continuing with poor policies, greater corruption and debt, and the inability to tackle the given country's problems head-on, particularly those problems that USAID proponents believe justify USAID's continued existence. 

It does not matter that the USAID budget is less than one percent of the $6.75 trillion U.S. federal budget. Since foreign aid is not accomplishing its goals, the agency should be nixed, shut down, cease to operate. Humanitarian assistance should be provided by the State Department. As for trying to use foreign aid to promote democracy or try to improve economic development, that is the sort of work that should not be part of U.S. foreign policy because it is a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Why I Have Mixed Feelings About Trump's Plan to Annex Gaza

Trump has been in office for less than a month and he is already shaking things up. In the cases of immigration and international trade policy, it has not been for the better. Those topics notwithstanding, how he is approaching foreign policy is noteworthy. As the American Enterprise Institute brought up, Trump is not contending with a single school of thought when it comes to foreign policy, but five. He has floated acquiring a number of pieces of land, including purchasing Greenland. 

Last week, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu met with President Donald Trump for a press conference. You would think that Trump would want to discuss the ceasefire or U.S. policy with Iran. Instead, Trump decided to throw in a curveball: the possible U.S. annexation of Gaza. His thought is that by taking over the Gaza Strip, the U.S. can dismantle the bombs, missiles, and network of tunnels; rebuild Gaza; and create economic development that will convert Gaza into the "Riviera of the Middle East." 

From someone who really likes Israel, I like the prospect of removing a legitimate threat to Israel and turning Gaza into a developed and peaceful part of the world. It has some parallels to how the United States dealt with Nazi Germany post-World War II by re-educating the citizenry while implementing the Marshall Plan. Instead of starting World War III, Germany ended up being a democratic nation-state with a growing economy. I have documented how anti-Semitism is a prominent feature of Palestinian society and not simply a bug or an abnormality (see here and here). Another Palestinian survey finding to throw into the mix is that in response to the October 7 attacks, 98 percent of Palestinians were more proud to be Palestinian (Arab World for Research and Development). 

Quite frankly, I am sick of seeing these wars in the Middle East. It is exhausting to see the numerous times that Palestine (and in pre-1967 terms, other Arab polities) have refused to accept a peace deal with Israel because they don't want a two-state solution, but all the land....from the river to the sea. Back in 2012, I brought up that unless the Palestinians want peace with its Israeli neighbors, there will be a perpetual stalemate. Not only does war come with death tolls, it is a subpar usage of one's resources. Getting along and working together is a much better use of time, resources, and effort than warfare. Trump realizes that the situation in Gaza is untenable and that something needs to change. As out-of-the-box as this idea is, this shift in paradigm and actual foreign policy might work for the Middle East in the long-run. That being said, I have to wonder if this is a good idea. 

Back in 2022, I made an argument that the United States should not militarily intervene in Ukraine. I am taking a similar approach to Gaza. Yes, Israel has been an essential part of the United States' Middle East policy since Israel became a nation-state in 1948. In 2013, then-Vice-President Joe Biden argued that support of Israel was both a moral and strategic commitment. 

Where I hesitate in part is based on how the surrounding Arab nations will react. Will they be supportive of Trump's plan? Will a U.S. military presence in Gaza escalate the situation into a regional war or undermine the Abraham Accords that were a success from Trump's first term? It is a gamble because a U.S. military presence can either stabilize the region or it can make matters worse. The military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan are good examples of the doubt I am expressing. 

Then there is the price tag to consider. Both a senior economist at the think-tank RAND Corporation and a program chief at the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) estimate that rebuilding Gaza will cost $80 billion. This would be a low-bound cost estimate of Trump's plan because that is the cost for merely rebuilding Gaza. This does not include the cost of military intervention. As I have brought up on this blog numerous times, the United States is dealing with trillions in debt, a debt that is only projected to climb. Does the United States really need to get involved in geopolitics on the other side of the globe when it cannot manage its own finances? Conversely, the cost paid for this plan now could be a lot smaller than future costs if conflict continues or escalates in that region. Also, if this plan could result in actual peace in the region, the peace, stability, and increased economic transactions could offset the plan's costs in the long-run. 

Regardless, I do not only refer to that cost in terms of dollars and cents. If the U.S. military enters Gaza, do you think Hamas is simply going to lay down its arms and surrender? The Palestinian cause is about wiping out Israel to create a unified Palestinian state. Hamas spent so much on a military infrastructure and building tunnels instead of economic development and peaceful trade with its Israeli neighbors. Since the Arab world is an honor-based society (شرف), Gazans are going to be even more reluctant to lose face when they have spent so much time and resources trying to wipe out Israel. More blood will be spilt if Trump goes ahead with this plan, whether that is that of Israelis, Gazans, or American soldiers. Will Trump be able to maintain the political support for annexing Gaza as U.S. soldiers are dying, especially since he promised no new wars during his second term? A poll from YouGov conducted last week shows that 22 percent of Americans support the plan, if that gives you a sense of political feasibility. 

There is also the matter of where two million Gazans would relocate. Arab nations already expressed their opposition to this plan because they do not intend on absorbing Palestinian refugees. As the Brookings Institution mentions, that opposition makes sense since a) they do not want to have to pay to support more refugees, and b) the Palestinian national cause has been a central cause of Arab polities for decades, "often to the cynical benefit of their rulers." Jordan is especially going to be opposed because it could open up a Pandora's box for letting Palestinians in and threaten regime stability. 

On the other hand, nations were able to absorb refugees from the Syrian Civil War, including Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan. Unless there is some other underlying reason, there should be no reason why Arab nations cannot help out their Arab brothers and sisters in a time of need. On the third hand, this has the potential to undo Israel's peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan if there is pressure from Trump to relocate the refugees to either Egypt or Jordan.

I do not have a crystal ball, so I do not know the answers for some of the questions I am asking because I do not have clairvoyance and foresight can only get you so far. The wars that have been fought simply because Muslim Arab neighbors have had difficulty handling the reality that there is a Jewish in their midst is unfathomable. Something drastic needs to be done to end the cycle of violence in that region of the world to usher in an era of peace. At the same time, I am not 100 percent convinced that turning Gaza into another of Trump's real estate projects is the way to handle to the Middle East conflict. It will be interesting to see how this proposal develops in the upcoming weeks. 

Trump Revives His Trade War, This Time Under the Guise of Fighting the War on Drugs

The Tariff Man is at it again. Last Saturday, Trump imposed 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico, as well as an additional 10 percent tariff on Chinese imports. The justification Trump used was to address the threat posed by fentanyl, and to use the Emergency Economic Powers Act to do it. So why China, Mexico, and Canada? Because according to Trump, the fentanyl comes from China and passes through Canada and Mexico before it comes to the United States. Granted, he was able to delay the tariffs on Mexico and Canada for a month because he received some concessions about border security as it pertains to fentanyl. Whether they resume in a month remains to be seen. At the same time, here are some reasons why this latest round of tariffs is ridiculous:

• China, Mexico, and Canada will not be paying these taxes. It is not the foreign countries that bear the majority of the tax burden for tariffs, but it will be the American consumers and American businesses. There were a dozen studies showing that tariffs during the first Trump term were almost entirely paid by U.S. consumers and businesses. The fact that U.S. citizens and enterprises will get hit much harder than China, Mexico, or Canada ever will undermines the argument. 
• Trump is undermining his trade agreement from his first term. Trump touted the United States-Canada-Mexico Agreement (USMCA) as the fairest and most balanced trade agreement the United States ever signed into law. This bout of tariffs violate his promise with USMCA, which can make him less trustworthy in future engagements with other countries. 
• This trade war will increase further trade retaliation. Other countries can and do retaliate in response to tariffs. The Federal Reserve concluded that retaliation helps offset what little benefit that tariffs develop. The Peterson Institute for International Economics found that the GDP of all countries involved will lower as a result of the tariffs and subsequent retaliation. 

• Previous tariffs hurt the American people. When Trump implemented the tariffs in his first term, what happened? Trump's tariffs cost the country $51 billion in economic output, a reduction of wages by 0.14 percent, and employment decreased by 166,000 jobs. Bush Jr.'s tariffs cost 200,000 jobs and $4 billion in lost wages. What about the tariffs of Trump's tariff mentor, William McKinley? They resulted in lower productivity and higher consumer prices.
• Trump's tariffs are likely to hurt the American people again. Last week, Trump justified the tariffs by saying that they will make America rich and very strong. Too bad he is wrong on that front. Not only did tariffs not work in the past. The Tax Foundation estimated that these tariffs would shrink economic output by 0.4 percent over the next decade while amounting to a tax of $800 on the average household. The Peterson Institute for International Economics calculated that it will reduce the average household's purchasing power by $1,200 per year. Trump still has not learned that you cannot tax your way to prosperity. 

• Trump's argument about tariffs and economic prosperity does not hold. If tariffs are so great, why does Trump simply implement them no matter other nations decide to do? Why did he take them off the table instead of go ahead with the tariffs if they are so great? If tariffs are simply tools to threaten other nations with and then Trump removes them upon compliance, then tariffs were never about economic prosperity. 
• Nor does his argument about stopping border crossings. Trump also said that he wanted to implement these tariffs because he wants to "stop the flood of illegal aliens." This is humorous because a tariff is a subpar way of going about it. Why? As the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) brings up, tariffs appreciate the value of the dollar. A dollar with a higher value makes working in the United States more attractive to immigrants, thereby increasing border crossings. 
• And fentanyl will get cheaper. More immigration will not be the only result of the appreciated dollar as a result of the dollar. To quote AEI again, the exchange rate appreciation would lower the dollar price of fentanyl because the fentanyl would not be subject to tariffs. Cheaper fentanyl would mean greater consumption, more substance abuse, and more overdoses, which is exactly what Trump purports to be preventing. 

Conclusion. These tariffs are not about generating prosperity for all, but about inducing fear and compelling behavior. Not only do tariffs harm the economy, but these particular tariffs will undermine Trump's goals of stopping fentanyl consumption and border crossings. Furthermore, Trump's actions effectively gives him the ability to start economic war without notice or oversight. To quote Charles Cooke from National Review, "They [the tariffs] are constitutionally suspect, statutorily usurpative, diplomatically toxic, and culturally chaotic." Instead of making America great again, Trump's tariffs will make all countries involved worse off.

Trump Is On to Something With Wanting to Eliminate FEMA (Or At Least Greatly Reducing Its Size)

In the first week of his second term, President Donald Trump visited North Carolina to see the western part of the state that was affected by Hurricane Helene, and also visited Los Angeles to assess the damage by the wildfires. His takeaway from the visit? That the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) should be reformed or eliminated. He even signed an executive order to commission a comprehensive review of FEMA. My reaction? I think he is on to something. 

The federal government is not the best to handle disaster management. As the Congressional Research Service accurately points out, "The responsibility for responding to disasters begins at the local level with survivors, elected officials, and emergency service personnel. If local government resources are overwhelmed, nongovernmental voluntary organizations in the community and governments in neighboring jurisdictions may be called upon to provide assistance." State and local governments are closer to the action, and thus able to respond more quickly, than the federal government. Plus, FEMA is not a first responder agency; their primary function is to provide disaster aid. 

Nonprofits and private-sector entities are more responsive and agile than FEMA. Given the lengthy government hiring process, FEMA cannot quickly expand hiring when disaster strikes. Private disaster management companies, such as Civix, AAECom, and Deloitte, can move much more quickly. Nor does government contracting permit laying off workers during a slow disaster season, thereby creating greater inefficiency from FEMA. 

FEMA does not have a good track record. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) detailed in a 2019 report how the federal government has challenges in helping communities recover from disasters, particularly when it comes to disaster resilience and long-term recovery. Another issue with FEMA, according to GAO, is poor advanced planning. 

This GAO report points out a greater trend with FEMA intransigence. After Hurricane Sandy in 2012, DHS' After-Action Report illustrated how FEMA had challenges with coordinating with various partners and meeting survivor needs. FEMA seems to at least have done a better job with Hurricane Sandy than it did with Hurricane Katrina. A bipartisan committee report concluded that FEMA's response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was riddled with unpreparedness, slow response time, miscommunication, and mismanagement of resources. Time will tell with how FEMA's performance with Hurricane Helene will fare in the eyes of evaluators.

Then there is the spending aspect. In its 2024 budget, FEMA was allocated $30 billion dollars. $20 billion of that $30 billion was spent on direct disaster relief. The remaining third was spent on bureaucracy, insurance, and grants. I could not imagine a private-sector firm or nonprofit spend with such profligacy and stay in business.

Another aspect I found of interest is that FEMA paid $7.4 billion to individuals for home repair assistance through the Individuals and Households Programs (IHP) from 2003 to 2018. The DHS Office of Inspector General found that $3 billion of that $7.4 billion, or over 40 percent, was either improper payments or fraud. 

2-6-2025 Addendum: This lovely report from the Office of Inspector General (OIG) was released on January 30, 2025. In it, the OIG details how FEMA partook in $9.6 billion in wasteful spending during the COVID pandemic. $8.5 billion of that was questionable spending and the other $1.5 billion was over-obligated spending. Way to go, FEMA!

FEMA creates perverse incentives for states being prepared for disasters. The Stafford Act, which is the Act determining the laws behind disaster aid, covers 75 percent of disaster costs when the U.S. President declares an emergency. As the Heritage Foundation points out, the Stafford Act words what constitutes an emergency is that it is "beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments and that Federal assistance is necessary." That vague standard creates a disincentive for states to be underprepared, thereby setting a lower threshold for what constitutes as an emergency. It would explain why the Congressional Research Service found an increase in disaster declarations since FEMA first started in 1979 (see below). 

In economic terms, the phenomenon of removing the incentive to guard against risk is moral hazard. I have illustrated how moral hazard has been a problem with student loan forgiveness, unemployment benefits, COVID-era bailouts of state governments, the federal government paying for flood insurance, and moral hazard in the banking industry. Aside from incentivizing states to be underprepared, this increase in declarations spreads FEMA funds thin and strains its resources, thereby reducing its efficacy. 

Flood Insurance and Moral Hazard. FEMA does not only create moral hazard through the Stafford Act, but also through its flood insurance program: the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). You can read my 2017 analysis on the NFIP and why we should privatize flood insurance. Essentially, the federal government promising to cover costs in the event of flood incentivizes people to move to hurricane-prone areas, which further increases the costs both in the market and to the government. The flood insurance program is so problematic that the Left-leaning Washington Post scrutinized it last October after Hurricane Helene struck. 

Postscript. FEMA programs have created moral hazard while being inefficient with taxpayer dollars. At a minimum, I would implement considerable reforms, such as increasing the threshold to which states are eligible for FEMA funds so that FEMA could focus on the most intense and destructive disasters. At the same time, I can see an argument for abolishing FEMA while allowing for its unique functions, e.g., flood mapping, to be covered under other federal agencies. Bringing disaster management back to the states could help make states more prepared and responsive to natural disasters instead of expecting the federal government to swoop in and take its sweet time to assist state and local governments. 

9 Reasons Why Trump Should Not or Does Not Need to Purchase Greenland

Shortly before President Trump assumed the presidency, it felt like he was trolling the American people when it came to foreign policy. Trump wanted to revisit the idea of owning the Panama Canal, in spite of President Carter relinquished it to Panama in 1977. Trump floated the idea of Canada becoming a 51st state of the United States to avoid tariffs. He also presented the idea of buying Greenland. Last Friday, Trump got into a reportedly "fiery" call with Mette Frederiksen, the Danish Prime Minister over the idea. That was after Anders Vistisen, a Danish member of European Parliament for the Right-leaning Danish People's Party, told Trump that Greenland is not for sale and for Trump to "fuck off." The reasons why the Danes' opinion matters in this instance is because Greenland is a self-governing country within the Danish Kingdom. 

This is not the first time that Trump has proposed buying Greenland. He did so in August 2019, which prompted me to write a blog entry on the policy idea. As I brought up in 2019, Greenland has natural resources of interest, particularly the rare earth metals that are necessary for our smartphones, computers, and other electronic goods. As the Arctic sea ice continues to melt, the Arctic Circle will become a more viable alternative for maritime travel than the Panama or Suez Canals. In terms of national security, Russia and China are more interested in that region of the world, which is piquing Trump's interest. 

It is more than the economic and national security implications that do not make the idea crazy. One, this country has purchased land before. In 1803, the United States paid $15 million to France to double the size of the United States. There was the acquisition of Florida in 1819, followed by the purchase of Alaska for $7.2 million in 1867. Although it was considered Seward's Folly, I bet Russia is kicking itself for that transaction because of all the petroleum in Alaska. Two, this is not the first time purchasing Greenland has been a policy question. The United States considered purchasing Greenland in 1868 under President Andrew Johnson and in 1946 under President Truman. 

Three, purchasing Greenland sure beats going to war and trying to conquer it, especially since invading Greenland would likely be the end of NATO. Four, it is possible to be an independent or quasi-independent territory within the United States, as Guam, Puerto Rico, Micronesia, Northern Marina Islands, Palau, and the American Samoa have demonstrated. That being said, I do have objections to Trump's plan:

1) Neither Denmark nor Greenland want to sell Greenland. The Prime Minister of Greenland is trying to push for Greenland's independence. Meanwhile, Denmark is looking to spend $1.5 billion to bolster defense in Greenland. This will not work well if both sides are not on board. 

2) Denmark is a NATO ally. Not only could this upset Denmark, but it could have a ripple effect towards other NATO allies. It could even push Greenland to want to ally itself with Russia and China. 

3) The United States already has a military base in Greenland: the Pituffik Space Base. As the Center for Strategic and International Studies points out, Trump can make progress on U.S. national security priorities with the already-existing engagement strategy that it shares with Greenland and Denmark.

4) It is unlikely that China and Russia would take over Greenland. Russia is already having enough issues with Ukraine. In 2018, Washington and Copenhagen fended off Chinese bids to build airports in Greenland. Even if either country decided to invade, the United States has the advantage of already having a military base on Greenland (see previous point) and proximity relative to Russia and China. I am sure there are more serious national security issues for the U.S. government to address. 

5) Yes, there are rare earth metals in Greenland. Wouldn't it be easier to simply purchase the mineral rights in the open marketplace instead of the entire country? After all, the United States imported $131.9 billion in mineral fuels, oils, and distillation products from Canada without making Canada the 51st of the United States of America. Ownership of Greenland is not a prerequisite to gain access to Greenland's rare earth metals. Plus, making Greenland part of the United States would make it more difficult to extract those rare earth metals due to the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).

6) One could argue that Greenland would benefit from an influx of American investment and increased tourism. However, Greenland does not need to be purchased. The goals of increased infrastructure, tourism, and immigration could be accomplished with bilateral trade agreements. 

7) The think-tank American Action Forum estimated the purchase price of Greenland at $2.8 trillion. Given the previous points plus the fact that United States has over $36 trillion in debt, can the United States really afford to add $2.8 trillion to its debt?

8) Given Greenland's remote location and harsh climate, the returns on investment remain uncertain. 

9) Greenland has a distinct cultural heritage, not to mention an indigenous Inuit population. It could prove difficult to integrate Greenland into U.S. society and culture, especially given the geographical and cultural distance between the two entities. 

Postscript. I know Trump gained his fame from being a real estate tycoon. He is known for "Art of the Deal." I am sure his past experience is playing into his desire to acquire Greenland, especially since he know has the backing of the world's most powerful military. The truth is that Trump should not try to acquire Greenland nor does he need to acquire Greenland. 

I do not think that the idea of purchasing a country is prima facie antiquated. Much like with individuals or companies within the private sector, I think these transactions are most successful when mutually beneficial and when there is mutual agreement. Given that the governments of Greenland or Denmark are on board with this proposal, I think that adds given reason to be against Trump's proposal. Trump can acquire the benefits through other means short of purchasing Greenland, whether that is bilateral trade agreements, mineral rights, or expanding military interests through the current engagement strategy. Let us hope that he can be convinced of those alternatives instead of making a foreign policy faux pas. 

Biden Was Not Lax on Immigration and the Border, In Spite of What Right-Wing Outlets Say

In his first days of office, President Trump did not waste any time, particularly with immigration. On his first day of his second term, Trump signed ten executive orders relating to immigration. This flurry of executive orders was to help fulfill Trump's campaign promise of mass deportation, a policy goal I had criticized last October. I am not going to get into particulars with each executive order today, whether it is about birthright citizenship, enhanced vetting, or expanding "expedited removal." I will say that this brings up a major, overreaching concern I had with Trump's immigration policy during his first term, which is that takes issue with legal immigration as much as he does illegal immigration. I strongly believe that such a stance on immigration is inopportune and unacceptable from an economic lens, as well as with regards to civil liberties. 

Along with international trade, immigration is the topic I have found myself most critical of the Trump administration. You might think that Biden was more amenable to immigration or his stance was so much more lax than that of Trump's. The idea of a border crisis was echoed by the think tank Heritage Foundation in multiple analyses. Fox News blamed Biden and his "border crisis" for causing a "tidal wave" of immigration, increasing the number of terrorists in the country, and also worsening K-12 education. The House Committee on Homeland Security and House Committee on Oversight also presented Biden as being weak on immigration and cracking down on the border crossings. 

The problem with asserting that Biden did not crack down on the border or that he was lenient on immigration is that it is not true. The Cato Institute was kind enough to provide a four-part series on why Biden did not cause the border crisis (Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV). Here are some nuggets from the research:

Border enforcement did not decline during the Biden administration. You can look through the Department of Homeland Security data for yourself, but Biden expelled more immigrants than Trump. As we can see from the chart below, Biden wasted no time in expelling more immigrants in his first month in office than Trump ever managed during his entire first term. 

Not only did Biden expel more immigrants, Biden also expanded border detention and detention capacity from what Trump had during his first term. Right before the pandemic started, Trump's Custom and Border Protection (CBP) had 2,811 individuals in custody in February 2020. In the Biden administration, the peak reached to over 19,000 individuals, which was nearly twelve-fold in comparison to Trump. 

In February 2021, Biden opened up an additional processing facility and three more facilities two months later. Biden also sent 1,500 National Guard members to the border, as well as more asylum officers. Furthermore, Biden increased U.S. removal flights by 55 percent in comparison to the Trump administration. It was not only border detention that increased, but Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention, as well (see below, as well as ICE data here).

As Migration Policy brings up, there were significantly more encounters at the border during the Biden administration than there ever were during Trump's first term. 

Far from being lax or lenient on the border, Biden was quite strict when it came to the border. If anything, Biden did more in terms of arrests, detentions, and expulsions than Trump did at any point during his first term in president. It might seem convenient to blame Biden because the influx of immigrants happened under Biden's watch. But there were factors that were not of Biden's doing or were in his control. 

One had to do with the pandemic itself. The economic impact of the COVID-era lockdowns caused enough of an economic downturn in the economies in the Western world. In the United States, the economic damage from the lockdowns was an estimated $9.8 trillion. Imagine what it did to parts of the world that were less economically stable, such as Central and South America. People want to leave that carnage for greener pastures, and understandably so. Combine that with the spike with the demand in labor that took place in February 2021 when businesses started opening up again. 

Then there was Title 42, which was Trump's idea to use the pandemic as a guise to expel immigrants and refugees. As I pointed out in my May 2023 analysis of Title 42, Title 42 most likely ended up incentivizing repeat border crossings. It was a combination of decreased labor demand, eliminating Title 42, and increasing the legal entries of asylum seekers that brought the spike in border crossings down in 2024. 

What worries me is that the "Biden was weak on immigration" argument has been used as a pretext by the Trump administration to be even more gung-ho on cracking down on immigration. This myth will contribute to the decline of immigration overall. The truth is that legal immigration decreased under Trump while illegal immigration increased. Much like Trump did first term, he will likely go after legal immigration much more than he will illegal immigration, especially since legal immigration is higher and illegal immigration much lower than it was during Trump's first term. Immigration is a net boon for the United States, even when you factor in those immigrants that are considered "low-skilled." Trump clearly did not learn that lesson during his first term as President. It looks like he will spend his second term undermining immigration, thereby undermining American prosperity.  

Israel Is Paying Quite the Cost for This Horrid 2025 Gaza Ceasefire "Deal"

Seizing captives for military or financial gain has a long history dating back to Julius Caesar. Unfortunately for Israel, this is a tactic that Hamas understands too well. On October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorists entered Israel and attacked Israeli civilians. Part of Hamas' barbarism entailed kidnapping over 240 civilians. Since that infamous day in Israeli history, Hamas has been using hostages as pawns in its insidious goal to wipe out Jews, much like its cynical ploy to use Gazan civilians as human shields in order to gain international sympathy. This past Sunday began what is meant to be a three-part ceasefire that is intended to put an end to the fighting in Gaza. 

Israel was pressured into this bad deal by the United States. One, President Biden could tout a foreign policy by claiming credit for the ceasefire. Also, Trump threatened that "all hell would break out" if the hostages were not released by the time he became president. It is disheartening to see Trump try to haphazardly put pressure on Israel so he could avoid a foreign policy embarrassment early in his second term. Trump might think the deal is "epic," but it is a capitulation to a relentless terrorist organization.

I criticized the idea of a ceasefire last January and I still stand by the opinion that Israel should not sign a ceasefire. Ceasefires between Israel and Hamas have not worked in the past. If they were meant to be an effective peacemaking mechanism, we would have seen it by now. Whether it was 2009, 2012, 2014, 2019, or 2021, Hamas would take advantage of the ceasefire to regroup, rearm, and eventually attack Israel again. As former Secretary of State Antony Blinken confirmed, Hamas nearly replaced its losses by recruiting new fighters. How long again before Hamas decides to attack Israel again?

Israel's withdrawal from various parts of Gaza were fought with the blood of 400 Israeli soldiers, as well as the blood, sweat, and tears of other Israeli soldiers. The ground Israel gained through this arduous urban warfare has given the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) the upper hand. Such a withdrawal would give a militaristic advantage to Hamas, especially since Hamas hides in these populated areas from where the IDF would withdraw. It would also mean that those IDF soldiers loss their life for naught. Giving up this ground would most likely perpetuate the conflict, as is reinforced from the previous paragraph. 

Furthermore, there is no one there to replace Hamas, including Fatah. That means if Israel withdraws from Gaza, Hamas remains in charge of the area. Hamas is a terrorist organization hellbent on exterminating Jews and has shown no signs whatsoever that it will be deterred from that mission. Plus, it is not like the Gazans can scream "Occupation" since Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005. Since a ceasefire does not address the Jew-hatred of Hamas and so many of Gaza's citizens, how does a ceasefire ignoring the root causes resolve the conflict in the Middle East? 

Then there is the matter of the ratios are way too lopsided. Israel is expected to trade 30 terrorists for one civilian hostage and 50 terrorists for each female soldier. Some of these prisoners have committed some horrible acts against humanity. It is even more twisted that the hostages will not all be released at once. What do you think these hardened criminals will do? Turn over a new leaf? They will most likely pick up where they left off. Anyone with anything remotely resembling a moral compass knows this arrangement is off-kilter. 

Regrettably, Israel already set the precedent in lopsided hostage-prisoner swaps. In 2011, Israel released over 1,000 Palestinian terrorist prisoners for IDF soldier Gilad Shalit. I was elated to see Shalit released from captivity. Conversely, I have to wonder if it was worth the price. After all, one of those prisoners released in 2011 was Yahya Sinwar, the architect of the October 7 attacks. Although unintended and unforeseeable, Israel's hostage-prisoner swap in 2011 was responsible for hundreds more being murdered about 12 years later. What future butcherer will Israel release from prison if it goes through with the entirety of this latest ceasefire? And how is it justice to release men who have committed heinous crimes, especially for the families of the victims of said crimes? 

I could only imagine the hell the hostages have endured. I wish there was not a hostage situation or that we could live in a world where there could actually be peace in the Middle East. I think it has been way too long that this war and hostage situation has occurred. I do not want to belittle the joy that the families of the hostages will upon seeing their loved ones or the relief that Gazan civilians will feel with a hiatus in the fighting. As 9/11 taught the United States, the sort of political pressure created by the hostages can be immense enough to want the Israeli people to take a deal, no matter what the long-term consequences are. It makes me wonder if the Israeli government is gaining some short-term relief in exchange for another attack as horrific, if not more so, than October 7. 

This subpar ceasefire rewards the terrorists while undermining Israeli national security. As Econ 101 teaches, you get more of what you reward. Incentivizing Hamas to kidnap and torture civilians in the future so they can be used as bargaining chips, much as we have already seen take place. Donald Trump, the man renown for the "Art of the Deal," should be able to do better than pressure a deal that is likely to cause greater instability in the Middle East, thereby being the President's first foreign policy faux pas of his second term. In the meantime, I hope that the hostages come home and that there can be a speedy end to this conflict that can ensure lasting peace in that conflict-ridden region of the world. 

Studies Show Hurricanes Not Increasing in Power Dissipation: Another Coup to Climate Change Hysteria

Those who believe that climate change will be the end of mankind tell us that all we need to do is drastically cut our carbon emissions to avert Armageddon. It would explain why the Biden administration was gung-ho with such climate policies as onerous power grid regulations, water heater energy efficiency standards, stricter emissions standards to encourage electric vehicle purchases, or the Inflation Reduction Act. Let's take a look at President Biden's response to Hurricane Helene as an example:

Nobody can deny the impact of climate crisis anymore. At least I hope they don't. They must be brain-dead if they do. Scientists report that with warming oceans powering more intense rains, storms like Helene are going to get stronger and stronger. 

Forgetting the irony of a man with clear cognitive decline commenting on brain function for a moment, I have to question the general premise of his claim that "climate change's impact on hurricanes is so obvious that someone with half a brain can realize it." I hate to break it to Biden and climate change activists everywhere, but it is decidedly not the case. 

In September 2024, the scientific journal Nature published a study showing a decreasing trend in the destructive potential of cyclones, which include typhoons and hurricanes (Tu et al., 2024). These Chinese meteorologists used a "power dissipation index" (PDI), which combines storm intensity, duration, and frequency, to determine whether hurricanes, cyclones, and typhoons have become more intense in the past four decades. Guess what they found? The overall global trend is that the PDI is on the decline, whereas it remains steady in the North Atlantic (see below; see Addendum for further detail). 

As much as I would like to say that I am surprised by these findings backed by meteorological data, I am not. Shortly after Hurricane Ian in 2022, I wrote a piece on how the media continued to exaggerate the effects of climate change on hurricanes. I had pointed out how weather-related deaths have been on the decline, the normalized cost of hurricanes (which adjusts for population and property construction increases) remained relatively constant, and that the number of overall hurricanes and major hurricanes has not increased. 

I can point to a study from the Heritage Foundation that was released in December (D'Aleo and Dayaratna, 2024) about how the lack of trends in hurricane activity since the mid-1800s (see chart above). I suspect that Biden would not read a Heritage Foundation report, much less heed it, because the Heritage Foundation is on the Right. Instead, maybe President Biden should listen to his National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which found the following: 

• "There is no strong evidence of century-scale increasing trends in U.S. landfalling hurricanes or major hurricanes. Similarly for Atlantic basin-wide hurricanes, there is not strong evidence for an increase since the late 1800s in hurricanes, major hurricanes, or the proportion of hurricanes that reach major hurricane intensity." 
• "After adjusting for a likely under-count of hurricanes in the pre-satellite era, there is essentially no long-term trend in hurricane counts. The evidence for an upward trend is even weaker if we look at U.S. landfalling hurricanes, which even show a slight negative trend beginning from 1900 or from the late 1800s." 
• While the NOAA projects that the lifetime maximum intensity of Atlantic Hurricanes will increase by about 5% during the 21st century, NOAA also projects "substantial decrease (~25%) in the overall number of Atlantic and tropical storms." 
• "After adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there remains just a small nominally positive trend (not statistically significant) in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006." 
• "We conclude that historical Atlantic hurricane data at this stage do not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced century-scale increase in: frequency of tropical storms, hurricanes, or major hurricanes, or in the proportion of hurricanes that become major hurricanes." 

Aside from the ubiquitous nature of climate change, what draws people's attention is the notion of "if it bleeds, it leads." That is why climate change activists and their allies have to resort to using low-probability models with tenuous assumptions to make their case. The fact that actual meteorological data show that hurricanes in the Atlantic or cyclones and typhoons in other regions of the world are not getting worse, at least indicated by the PDI, in spite of increased carbon emissions undermines the climate change hysteria. It is why I remain skeptical of climate change fear-mongering. We should focus on policy alternatives to mitigate the effects of hurricanes, which can include constructing hurricane-resilient buildings, privatizing flood insurance, and eliminating price gouging laws. Giving into climate change hysteria like the former President has done will do nothing to help us weather future hurricanes.

1-30-2025 Addendum: I had a spouse of a longtime friend reach out and comment on this blog entry since he is an electrical engineer by trade and has a passion for climate change. He correctly pointed out that the Nature study points out there has been a slight increase in intensity (See Figure below, Part B) and that this increase was caused by various atmospheric phenomena. I concede this point where I changed the title of this blog entry and made some other tweaks to acknowledge the fact that intensity has indeed been increasing. 

I will also point out that the overall PDI is on the decline due to decrease in frequency and duration (See Figure above, Parts A and C). The authors point out that the PDI has been more commonly used in the literature instead of focusing on a singular factor, such as intensity or frequency. There could be a methodological flaw in how each factor in the PDI is weighted or whether there are other considerations that should be factored into PDI. I am sure that debate could be had by experts who know more about this than I do because my profession in the field of public policy and I cannot possibly know everything about every topic. 

At the same time, it begs an important question for me. If PDI is indeed being more frequently used as a metric for tropical storm severity in the field of climate change, why is PDI not increasing if climate change is supposed to engender apocalyptic change? At the very least, it has me think that the magnitude of climate change is not as obvious as President Biden makes it out to be. Maybe I will get a lengthy response from my friend's spouse addressing some of these concerns, which is why I would not be surprised if this topic ends up being a future blog entry.

Meta Removing Fact-Checkers and Its DEI Initiative Are Welcomed Steps Towards Freedom and Sanity

As we approach the inauguration of Donald Trump for his second term, the tech company Meta is making the news. Meta is famous for such products and services as Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, and Threads. The reason for the hullabaloo around Meta is because last week, Meta made a major announcement about how it will approach content moderation. You can read analysis from the Cato Institute about what the changes entail.  

In response to the 2016 election, Zuckerberg hired fact-checkers to give users better information and combat misinformation. In reality, it ended up destroying more trust than it created because the fact-checkers were too politically biased, as Zuckerberg declared on The Joe Rogan Experience last week. In light of Meta's fact-checkers backfiring, Zuckerberg decided to replace fact-checkers with a Community Notes function similar to X (formerly Twitter). 

Barring extreme exceptions, the Community Notes option allows user to flag posts and add notes to it rather than downright censorship. While imperfect, studies examining Community Notes has been shown to mitigate the spread of misinformation while still preserving freedom of speech. It beats the inconsistency and frequent biases (typically those Left-of-center) that come with fact-checkers. 

I think this freedom of speech aspect of this policy change is important. Zuckerberg admitted that during the pandemic, the Biden administration would call to pressure Meta employees to suppress various COVID information that it deemed "misinformation." Given how off the mark the government was with providing accurate COVID-related information, a topic that I have covered extensively since the beginning of the pandemic, I can hardly blame people for feeling hoodwinked. 

While I think in part it was a decision to curry favor with President-Elect Donald Trump, it was also a good business move. Why? Because for-profit businesses care about their bottom line. They are not in business for charity, but to maximize the amount of business they conduct. When market demands shift, businesses need to change with those demands if they want to remain in business. As Zuckerberg recognized, there has been a shift in demanding reliability, transparency, and freedom of speech. 

Not only are they demanding greater freedom of speech, they are demanding an end to the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) insanity. That market trend would explain why Meta announced last week, a few days after the announcement about content moderation, that it would discontinue its DEI program.

I would argue that the trend against DEI started when the Supreme Court rightfully affirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits racial discrimination except in the most narrow of circumstances, which would include affirmative action. Since then, a number of major companies have discontinued or scaled back considerably their DEI initiatives, including Ford, Walmart, McDonald's, John Deere, and Toyota. I hardly blame these companies. 

DEI perpetuates racism, not to mention that it is a narrow-minded worldview that harms people of all races. As a formidable study from Rutgers concluded last year, mainstream modern-day DEI initiatives unsurprisingly increase hostility, racial tensions, and left-winged authoritarianism. This sort of toxicity is bad for the workplace and bad for business, which is why I would surmise that Zuckerberg realized the extent to which people have had it with DEI, especially when he said that the election was a cultural tipping point for free expression.  

The ones that are upset with Zuckerberg's decision are the ones that were happy with the censorship and DEI reigning supreme, mainly those on the Far Left who have loved controlling the narrative. They are upset because it is a potent sign that the people are fed up with Left-wing, woke authoritarianism and yearn to be free. Between the results of the 2024 elections and the increasing anti-woke sentiments, the Left is losing both its political power and cultural clout. Regardless of the reason for Meta's policy changes or how the political Left reacts to these cultural and political changes, I hope that we continue to see greater freedom of speech on social media instead of treating freedom of speech as something optional and conditional that can be swept aside when the government declares an emergency, much like it did during the pandemic. 

"Islamophobia" Is a Guise to Silence Legitimate Criticism of Islam That a Free Society Cannot Afford

Last week was the ten-year anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo attacks. Charlie Hebdo is a French satirical magazine. In the 2010s, Charlie Hebdo published a number of cartoons criticizing Islam. This included satirizing the Islamic prophet Mohammad in cartoon form. While not explicitly banned in the Quran, it is commonly considered verboten in Islamic society to make an image of Mohammad. Some even consider it blasphemy in Islamic law, and therefore punishable by death. On January 7, 2015, two French-born Algerian brothers thought precisely that and targeted Charlie Hebdo employees. They killed 12 people and injured an additional 11 people. 

Unfortunately, this was not the first nor the last Islamist attack in world history. More recently, there was the attack in New Orleans earlier this month and the attack on the Christmas market in Magdeburg, Germany last month. This also is part of a much larger trend of increased Islamist attacks. As the French think tank Fondation pour l'innovation politique shows in its database, there were 66,872 Islamist terrorist attacks between 1979 and April 2024, 84.4 percent of them having occurred within the last decade. 

I can imagine someone pointing out this reality and calling it "Islamophobic," much like those on the Woke Left like to call almost everything racist. The term "Islamophobia" is a confusing term. There are people who sadly discriminate based on the color of skin. We use such terms as "racism" or "xenophobia" to describe the problem. There is no race of Muslim people.  There are nearly two billion Muslims belonging to various ethnic groups across the planet.

Islam refers to a religion, a faith, a system of ideas. Criticizing Islam means criticizing various ideas, not a racial demographic. We do not use the term "Christophobia" or talk about anti-Christian sentiment in that way. Nor do we use such terms as "Marxophobia" or "Free-market-phobia" to describe antipathy towards given ideologies. To quote philosopher and author Sam Harris:

Honestly criticizing the doctrine of Islam does not entail bigotry against Arabs or any other group of people. It is not an expression of hatred to notice that specific Islamic ideas--in particular, beliefs about martyrdom, and jihad, and blasphemy, and apostasy--inspire terrible acts of violence. And it's not an expression of phobia--that is, irrational-fear--to notice that violent religious fanatics don't make good neighbors.

Per the suffix "-phobia," it implies that there is an irrational fear. Rational fears exist and the problem in this instance is that there are rational fears to be had. It is precisely the ideas and the implementation of said ideas that Islam's critics, myself included, have found to be so problematic. So what is there to fear? 

If you are gay, I would say there is plenty to legitimately fear. There are nine Muslim-majority countries in which a gay man can be executed for consensual gay sex, not to mention additional Muslim-majority countries that use the law to punish and incarcerate gay people.  What about women in Iran or Afghanistan who have to worry about the morality police, women in Sudan who can be punished for talking to a man who is not her husband, or the female genital mutilation that is all too common in Somalia? And what about a Muslim who loses their faith? Apostasy is punishable by death in Islamic law. I am sure that author Salman Rushdie felt (and very well might still do) when people threaten his life or try to kill him. Or how about those who kill those who mock Islam, as we saw with the Charlie Hebdo attack? 

While Islam could theoretically undergo a Reformation much like Christianity began its Reformation when Martin Luther nailed the 95 Theses on the door of Castle Church in 1517, there are no signs of Islam undergoing a Reformation or Enlightenment. That might have something to do with the fact that whatever faction of moderate Muslims exists is dealing with its own legitimate fear of being attacked or murdered by Islamists. What people in the Western world consider to be radical and authoritarian is normalized in the Muslim world. 

I know these survey data are dated, but I went back to 2013 survey data from Pew Research. Pew asked Muslims across the world about sharia law and what they consider to be immoral. It is not simply that most Muslims want sharia law implemented. Most Muslims also take issue with homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, and drinking alcohol while a significant minority support honor killings. If you look at the Freedom House rankings for the fifty-plus Muslim-majority nations, you will see that none of them are considered "Free" in terms of political freedom or civil liberties. They do not fare much better under the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. 

Like with the Far Left's use of other "phobias," whether it is homophobia, xenophobia, or transphobia, Islamophobia is a linguistic shift to silent dissent by conflating race with belief. Media outlet Spiked Online explains that "Islamophobia" is used as a cudgel to stigmatize or criminalize any critique of Islam as racist. To show where things stand, the Islamic Human Rights Commission gave its "Islamophobe of the Year" to the editorial staff at Charlie Hebdo only a few weeks after terrorists massacred them for publishing cartoons of Islam's prophet Muhammad. And it is amazing how many in the West go along with the "Islamophobia" trope.  

Yes, there is legitimate fear that gay people, women, apostates, and non-Muslims can have for being punished under Islamic society. There is legitimate fear that Islam is not here to coexist with people of religious persuasions, but rather to dominate and subjugate, as Muslim polities have done since Muhammad became a warlord in the seventh century. 

Denmark banning Quran burning to shield Muslims from being offended is but one example of how they are shaping the Western world to be as oppressive and authoritarian as the Muslim-majority countries. But if you criticize how sharia law is implemented in Muslim-majority countries or what a significant faction of Muslims living in Europe and other parts of the Western world would like to implement, you are wrongfully branded an "Islamophobe." To quote Sam Harris again:

And while every religion has its fanatics, there is only one religion on Earth where even its mainstream members of the faith seek to impose their religious taboos on everyone else. There is only one religion that has made it unsafe for people to criticize it, or indeed, for its own members to leave it. Only Muslims routinely fear for their lives when they decide to leave their  religion--and this is true, even in the West. If you doubt this, just read some books or listen to podcasts by ex-Muslims. 

As I brought up ten years ago, criticizing Islam is not Islamophobic and practitioners of Islam are not entitled to a life free of offense, criticism, or downright mockery. Being in a free society means that we can criticize, and by extension, offend others with what we believe or say. Those who silence criticism of Islam are committing an egregious linguistic sleight of hand that is eroding democracy and pluralism. At the end of the day, mimicking the intolerance of Islamists with censorship is not the way to go if we want to ultimately avoid being subjugated under authoritarian rule.