Political Violence Is Rare, But Charlie Kirk's Murder Marks a Chilling Turning Point for Freedom of Speech

In light of last week's events, it looks like we might have the 21st-century equivalent of the "shot heard 'round the world." While giving a public debate at Utah Valley University, conservative political activist and author Charlie Kirk was shot and murdered as part of his American Comeback Tour. The impact of Kirk's assassination cannot be overstated. 

Kirk was a defining voice for the modern-day conservative movement. As a co-founder of the organization Turning Point, Kirk helped mobilize a generation of young right-wing activists on college campuses, institutions that are known to notoriously lean far to the Left. Kirk was also known for touring college campuses. His open debate forum and confrontational Q&A sessions often sparked national debates. He was a key figure in the culture battles over freedom of speech and ideological diversity at institutions of higher learning, which are prone to Left-leaning ideological lockstep. 

As horrific as such examples of politically motivated violence as Kirk's murder is, it is a statistically rare occurrence. Using terrorism as the broadest definition of politically-motivated violence, the Cato Institute found that there have been 3,599 political motivated murders since 1975. Excluding the 83 percent of those murdered on 9/11, this brings the figure down to 620 murders. Murders committed in terrorist attacks accounted for 0.35 percent of all murders since 1975. 

Yes, politically motivated murders are statistically rare. Like with any murder, politically motivated murder is unacceptable and morally reprehensible, regardless of the political persuasion of the target. What makes politically motivated murder so socially corrosive, is in no small part, the symbolism behind his death. He was murdered while speaking publicly on campus, which is especially emblematic because a college campus was the signature venue for his activism. A question that I have is how the political Right and conservative activists will react. Will they become more cautious because they want to avoid the fate of Charlie Kirk? Will they become more emboldened, more defensive, or more radical? How will the conservative movement's overall evolve in response? Given his rare combination of oratory skills, media savvy, policy knowledge, and organizational acumen, it also begs the question of who will guide the conservative moment from here on out. 

Some accuse Charlie Kirk of spreading hate. I am not going to dissect some of his more controversial statements because it is irrelevant to the following argument. Similar to my criticism of "hate speech" in 2017, the reality is that hate speech often becomes shorthand for "speech I do not like" and also that there is no universally accepted definition of hate. What is hateful for one person could be considered a respectful disagreement for another person. Or to quote the Stoic philosopher Epictetus, "Men are not disturbed by things, but by the views they take of them." If we are to live in a free society, we cannot define hatred based on ideology or feelings because then free speech would only be for the powerful or the majority. For freedom of speech to work in a democratic society, it needs to apply to all. That includes people whose opinions I find detestable, such as pro-Palestine protestors.

To support freedom of speech means that diverging viewpoints exist within a democratic society. Allowing those viewpoints to exist and to be expressed allows for tolerance of others who think, believe, and act different to co-exist in the same society, which ultimately creates a more cohesive civil society. We could get into his debate tactics or the extent to which the comments he made were considered controversial. While his critics question his tone or tactics, this does not change the fact that Kirk's ideal was open debate and having discussions with those with whom he disagreed. He helped to create a mass movement based on the persuasiveness of his arguments, and that appeal revived the conservative moment in the United States. 

To quote the First Amendment advocacy group FIRE, "Words are not violence. Words are what we use instead of violence to resolve our differences." Charlie Kirk was using his words to engage college students, and he got murdered for practicing the very freedom he preached. Being part of a free society means feeling safe to express opinions and ideas without the fear of getting shot. People should not have to wonder whether expressing their beliefs requires metaphorical or literal body armor. Speaking your mind, especially on controversial issues, should not come with a high personal risk. If those hesitate to raise their hands, speak their voices, publish their essay, or partake in political activism as a result of what happened to Charlie Kirk, the foundation of dialogue erodes and democracy loses. 

I fear that people could self-censor out of this level of fear, which would make the intellectual marketplace suffer, people cling to echo chambers, and have extremism fester. There is a risk that the Trump administration could use this assassination as pretext for political witch hunts, expanded executive powers, or restarting the War on Terror. 

In short, I dread that this could be a pivot point in which the United States heads towards greater authoritarianism, and it would hardly be unprecedented. The assassination of Tzar Alexander II in Russia led to repression and stonewalling liberal reforms. A 2016 coup attempt in Türkiye inspired Erdoğan to consolidate power. The assassination of Anwar Sadat led to a 30-year declaration of emergency. Since I am currently in Peru, I bring up the Maoist Shining Path's political violence that led to democratically-elected Alberto Fujimori dissolve Peruvian Congress and commit human rights abuses in the name of fighting terrorism. 

Such moves towards greater authoritarianism are not exclusive to non-democratic societies. Modern-day democracies have also experienced authoritarian backlash, whether it was expanded police presence in France as a result of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, Israel using emergency responses to curtail civil liberties in response to war and intifada, the Patriot Act in the United States, or the United Kingdom's Anti-Terrorism Acts that allowed for infinite detention. I am not here to say that authoritarianism is the inevitable outcome, but rather to illustrate that any country, including constitutional democracies, can drift into authoritarianism in response to political violence. 

 

As I have brought up before, as long as people want more power and/or money, freedom and democracy will always be on the defensive. Freedom of speech is no exception. Both the Left and the Right believe that the assassination was spurred by the violence that the other side fomented. If the citizens of the United States are to get past this political assassination, there needs to be a cultivation of the ideals that Kirk strived towards, including open debate and respectfully engaging with those whose opinions are disagreeable or unpalatable. 

This country has undoubtedly steered far from those ideals. I highlighted survey work last year showing that most Americans do not care for the First Amendment. Even more disturbingly, a survey from Yale University found that about 40 percent of college students believe that violence is a justifiable response to speech, including death. 

In spite of these trends showing a lack of appreciation for the First Amendment, we need to keep our eye on the ball. One study from the Research Institute of Industrial Economics shows that greater freedom of expression eases social conflict (Bjørnskov and Mchangama, 2023), which is to say that we need to foster freedom of expression. The people of America need to stop viewing dissidents as "other" or as downright evil. We cannot accept the notion that speech is violence and that actual physical violence is an appropriate response to disagreeable opinions. Using that logic would mean that it would become acceptable to murder people for their opinions, and that would only increase intolerance and political violence. 

We either resolve our differences by discussions and a peaceful process or we do so with violence and bloodshed. As this Politico article detailing the analysis of political violence experts shows, the United States is not doomed to violence, but it is at a dangerous crossroads. There are declining democratic norms, increased divisions, and political incitement. If opponents continue to be demonized and if politicized violence continues to increase, this cycle of political violence can become entrenched in U.S. society. Unless there is a major course correction, America will do more than cease to be a city on a shining hill. It will risk trading its place as a beacon of liberty and be one step closer to becoming the authoritarian hellhole that the Founding Fathers were trying to avoid. 

Trump DOJ's Trans Gun Ban Proposal Is a Direct Hit on the Second Amendment

The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed under the Second Amendment and applies to all Americans, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender. However, the Trump administration might look to change that. Last month, the mass shooting at the Annunciation Catholic Church in Minnesota, which left two children dead and 17 wounded, was allegedly committed by a transgender individual. In response, the Department of Justice (DOJ) was reported to have been "reviewing ways to ensure that mentally ill individuals suffering from gender dysphoria are unable to obtain firearms while they are unstable and unwell." In other words, the DOJ is looking to ban transgender people from owning firearms. While there is no formal rule or a statement from the DOJ, the Right-leaning Daily Wire broke the story last week. 

Let us begin by asking whether the DOJ has a policy basis for such a proposal. The question to answer is whether the DOJ's theory that transgender people are mentally unstable enough to take away their Second Amendment rights is warranted. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) classifies gender dysphoria as a medical condition. It is true that transgender people have high levels of suicidal ideation and mental health diagnoses. However, there are three major counterarguments that refute the DOJ's premise that banning transgender people from owning firearms would help with public safety.

First of all, as I explained in 2017 in response to the Las Vegas mass shooting, mental illness is a poor predictor of violent behavior. The think tank RAND Corporation showed an absence of evidence when it came to the effects of firearm prohibitions related to mental illness on mass shootings. The only outcome with impact was violent crime generally, and even that was with limited evidence. More to the point, RAND pointed out that 2 to 4 percent of all violent behavior may be attributable to mental illness. The American Association of Medical Colleges found that less than 5 percent of mass shooters had a psychiatric diagnosis that resulted in a gun-disqualifying adjudication. 

The second counterargument that I have made before is that in spite of being frequently covered in the media, mass shootings are statistically rare, as research from the Cato Institute details. The Cato Institute defines a mass shooting as "an indiscriminate rampage with a firearm in a public place or place of business that results in at least three victims killed by the attacker." With this definition, there have been 298 shooters responsible for 1,733 murders and 2,459 people injured between 1966 and 2024. In total, the murder victims of mass shooters account for about 0.15 percent of all homicides since 1966. The probability of being murdered in a mass shooting is 1 in 9.1 million per year, whereas being injured in a mass shooting is 1 in 6.4 million. For context, the probability of being struck by lightning is 1 in 1.6 million, which is to say that an American is about six times more likely to be struck by lightning than shot in a mass shooting.  

Third, if having a mental disorder were the only factor in whether someone commits a mass shooting, we would see that arise in mass shooter demographic data. Transgender people do not pose a special or disproportionate threat, especially since 75 percent of transgender people do not report frequent mental distress. If anything, the data shows the opposite. The Gun Violence Archive data shows that 0.17 percent of mass shooters from 2018 to 2025 were transgender. Considering that 0.8 percent of Americans are transgender, this would mean that transgender people are almost five times less likely to commit a mass murder than the average American.

It was not simply LGBTQ Nation that was angry about this possible ban. That anger does not surprise me because LGBT organizations tend to lean Left and have been anti-Trump. What was surprising is that none of the pro-Second Amendment rights groups were happy, whether it was the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, or the Firearms Policy Coalition. 

It makes sense why that would be the reaction. Since there is no public health threat, there would be no justification to impose a blanket prohibition on transgender people's Second Amendment rights. The DOJ's line of thinking is even worse considering that a quarter of all Americans will qualify for a psychological diagnosis within a given year. Should we take away their Second Amendment rights, as well? Things generally do not go well for minorities when they are disarmed, whether that is African-Americans, Jews, gay people, or transgender people. 

The Supreme Court and federal courts have made it clear that disarming an entire group violates constitutional protections, particularly the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. If a court does uphold a Second Amendment ban, it is an individual adjudication based on an assessment or a commitment process, not a group-based ban. I hope that this proposal remains a failed idea in the backroom during a brainstorming session and does not become actual law. If this proposal goes forward it will not solely undermine the rights of transgender Americans. It will establish a dangerous precedent that civil rights can be revoked by bureaucratic fiat. That is a threat to liberty we should all oppose.

Mandate the Shot, Not the Choice: Why Florida Should Support Vaccine Requirements with Opt-Outs

The COVID pandemic might be behind us, but the vaccine debate is not. I am not surprised that people did not react kindly to lockdowns so harmful that we still feel their impact in 2025, ineffective face mask mandates, useless travel bans, and deleterious school closures. In aggregate, the COVID pandemic response entailed some of history's worst public policy choice in an era of peace. That being said, there is difference between a proportionate response to such carnage and having the pendulum swing too far to the other extreme. 

Last week, the Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo said at a press conference that he plans to eliminate all vaccine mandates for Florida, including for children in public schools. Setting aside him inflammatory remark of equating a vaccine mandate to "slavery", he made a distinctively libertarian appeal: "Who am I to tell you what you should put in your body?" 

I have advocated for the right to consume marijuana and psychedelic mushrooms, engaging in sex work, not being forced to take a COVID vaccine, selling one's organs for cash, adults having consensual sex with whichever adults they want, eating and drinking what you want (including raw milk and processed foods), and using birth control. This is my way of saying that I understand that few freedoms are more fundamental than what one puts into their body.   

I can understand how the COVID pandemic played a role in this decision. COVID vaccines had newer technology (mRNA) that was politicized from the onset and used executive orders to implement. Furthermore, herd immunity is not possible with COVID, which was evident as early as 2021. The politicization of COVID health measures and COVID vaccines was an overreach by the government. Plus, with the COVID vaccine mandate, it was either get the shot or lose your job. There was no third option. All of these reasons point to why I argued against a COVID vaccine mandate in 2021, both because of the nature of the vaccine and because of how the mandate was imposed.  

Ladapo was hired during the pandemic due to his reputation against harmful COVID interventions. He shaped Florida's COVID response to be focused on medical freedom over public mandate. I pointed out last year the heavy-handed approach with COVID vaccines eroded trust in all vaccines among many Americans. This distrust is now bleeding into policy, as reflected in Florida's move to repeal all vaccine mandates.

For such diseases with legacy vaccines as measles, mumps, and polio, it is unfortunate that Ladopo is conflating them with the COVID vaccines. Ladapo's view is consistent with medical freedom and bodily autonomy. So why is it that I take issue with the COVID vaccine mandate but not for legacy vaccines? There are decades of clinical data showing that legacy vaccines reduce mortality and morbidity with minimal risk. There is generally bipartisan support for the legacy vaccines and were supported by the legislative process, not executive orders. Most importantly, herd immunity is also achievable for many of the legacy vaccines.   

The reality is that completely removing the vaccine mandates increases the risk of outbreaks. A couple of multinational systematic reviews of school vaccine mandates show that immunization mandates generally increase vaccination uptake (Greyson et al., 2019; Lee and Robinson, 2016). This is good because these vaccines are shown to reduce morbidity and mortality, whether that is measles, chicken pox, or rotavirus. The World Health Organization's Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) was shown to have averted 154 million deaths from 1970 to 2024 (Shattock et al., 2024). Since vaccines are shown to avert deaths, not having enough children vaccinated undermines herd immunity. 

Much like I expressed with water fluoridation, outcomes are better when there is an opt-out option for such health interventions. Unlike with water fluoridation, there is the ability to have an opt-out option for a vaccine mandate. There are already 28 states that have religious exemptions for a vaccine mandate, as well as 16 states that allow for it on personal or philosophical grounds. An opt-out process should entail something such as a formal written exemption and signing a waiver stating that you acknowledge risks to others. 

As long as an opt-out exists for those who do not want to, society can balance the public health concerns with the matters of personal autonomy. Most will comply with the mandate by default, thereby maintaining herd immunity in most instances (with rare, localized outbreaks taking place) and making sure others are not harmed along the way. The minority that is opposed, which is about 21 percent per recent polling from Harvard, can opt out without state coercion. This "least restrictive means" approach to public health establishes public health standards while still allowing for personal refusal.

Dr. Ladapo's approach appears to be a win for freedom at first glance. In practice, it is a lose-lose for public health and for freedom. Libertarianism is supposed to defend liberty up to the point until it causes harm to others. By discarding minimal requirements for proven life-saving measures, the state of Florida abandons decades of research while exposing its citizens, children in particular, to avoidable risks. A mandate with a clear opt-out option upholds liberty while protecting individual autonomy and public safety. 

Worse still, this could ironically invite more government intervention, whether in the form of emergency powers in the event of an outbreak, a higher burden on state medical services that increase healthcare costs, or federal preemption from the CDC that could undermine Florida's sovereignty. A pragmatic path respects both freedom and evidence. In trying to protect freedom at all costs, Florida may end up sacrificing both liberty and life. A smarter, liberty-respecting state would choose a middle path that trusts people without abandoning its responsibilities. 

Trump's Tariff Mirage: His Tax Plan to Replace Income Tax With Tariffs Does Not Add Up

President Trump is clearly not happy with the way his legal case for the "Liberation Day" tariffs is going. Yesterday, Trump said that losing this legal battle would "cause the U.S. to suffer greatly" and that "our country has a chance to be unbelievably rich again [with the tariffs]." This pattern of rhetoric glorifying tariffs is nothing new. Earlier this week, he opined that removing tariffs, what should simply be referred to as import taxes because that is what tariffs are, would turn the United States into a third-world country. Let us forget for a moment that the United States has been a developed country for decades without the high tariff rates that Trump is trying to implement. In April, Trump said that tariff revenue could be so great that it could replace the federal income tax. The problem with that assertion is that it does not make economic sense nor would it make America great again. 

Economic Logic Problem

First, as I pointed out in April, the rationales used by Trump for tariffs do not make sense. Trump both wants to protect American workers from "unfair foreign protection" and generate tax revenue. Either tariffs will be high enough to deter imports from coming in, or they will generate enough revenue to make America rich again. These goals are in tension with one another, and maximizing one goal comes at the expense of the other. Trump wants to have his protectionist cake and eat it too, but that is not how tariffs work. 

Revenue Realities

Even setting aside these contradictions, the math to replace the federal income tax with tariffs simply does not add up. With the current tariffs in play, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated last month that the tariffs would generate $3.3 trillion in revenue over the next decade. Contrast this to the CBO's January 2025 federal income tax estimate (which was made before the tariffs were enacted) over the same period, which is $36.9 trillion (see below). That is a difference of $33.6 trillion, or put differently, the tariff revenue is projected to be less than 10 percent of the income tax revenue. The gap in revenue levels makes replacement impossible. So why is it that tariffs bring in so much less revenue than the federal income tax? 

Historical Perspective

As the Tax Foundation reminds us, the federal government of the late 19th century and early 20th century, which Trump is romanticizing, was different from today's government. Back in the day, federal government spending was about 2 percent of total GDP. Thanks to the implementation of the federal income tax, the government's ability to collect revenue expanded, in no small part to its large tax base. Now, the government spends the equivalent of 22.7 percent of GDP. Tariff revenue could not pay for Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security, never mind the rest of government spending.  

Why Tariffs Are More Harmful Than the Income Tax

Since the tax base of imports is smaller, the economic harm per unit of trade is higher. This means that raising meaningful revenue means tariffs need to be high. This results in greater economic damage than a broad-based income tax because tariffs tend to distort product and supply chain markets more directly than income taxes, which more often than not influence individual decisions cut as work and savings.

Tariffs affect what to buy, where to buy it from, and how to produce it. They are distortive because they only affect imports, as opposed to all goods. It is more distortive in part because goods from different countries get imposed with different tariff rates. With tariffs, it might cause consumers to buy overpriced domestic goods or force businesses to redesign supply chains inefficiently. As a result of shifting domestic production to less efficient domestic industries, this misallocation harms overall economic efficiency. 

Furthermore, tariffs also hit lower-income households harder because they spend a larger share of their income on goods. To make matters worse, tariffs are systematically higher on lower-end versions of goods (about an average of 4 percent) than their high-end counterparts (Acosta and Cox, 2024), which hits low-income households even harder.  

As I explained last year, free trade is beneficial to the poor because it reduces their cost of living while increasing the price of what they sell. Since tariffs make the economy less free, Trump's tariffs will have the opposite effect on cost of living, as we have seen in the past. Additionally, the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) showed that a revenue-neutral swap of $780 billion in tariffs for income tax cuts would cause significant losses, including 8.5 percent of after-tax income for the bottom quintile. 

Global Implications

Unlike the income tax, tariffs invite the possibility for other countries to retaliate with their own taxes. Not only does this hurt U.S. exporters, but it disrupts global supply chains and diminishes global trade diminishes, much like it did during the Great Depression. Those higher import costs could very well put upward pressure on prices, thereby risking stagflation. This would likely appreciate the dollar, which would worsen trade deficits and undermine international collaboration. Furthermore, if Trump continues imposing tariffs on the U.S.' allies, he risks alienating allies. This could push allies towards China, which would undermine stated national security goals while diminishing the U.S.' influence in the global economy, as well as in East Asia specifically.

Conclusion

Trump's proposal to have tariffs guide policy on government revenue is not only economically unsound but historically misguided.  When these tariffs were at their heyday in the 19th century, it resulted in lower economic productivity in terms of propping up inefficient enterprises, lower standard of living, and higher consumer prices. If Trump goes ahead with this inane idea, not only will he harm the economy, but he will anger the United States' allies while failing to generate enough revenue to replace the federal income tax. Tariffs are no substitute for a broad-based income tax. Reviving tariffs under the guise of making America great again might make for a catchy slogan on the campaign trail, but in practice, it would cause enough economic decline to send the U.S. economy back to the 19th century, and not in a good way. 

How the Government's War on Single-Room Occupancy Fueled the Housing Crisis

Along with food and clothing, a roof over one's head has been considered one of the three fundamental needs for human survival. This remains true even for those who have next to nothing. There was a time when housing existed for those who had very little: a room, a lockable door, and typically a shared bathroom. It was not glamorous, but it was a roof over one's head. These housing units, called single-room occupancies (or SROs), were a reliable and affordable source of housing for the United States' poorest residents, seniors, and those looking to climb out of poverty. Today, SROs are all but nonexistent in the United States. Rent is higher than ever, homeless shelters are jam-packed, and many are out of luck when it comes to housing. What happened to SROs? In two words: government intervention. 

Last week, a report from Pew Research that was released in July was brought to my attention. With the title "How States and Cities Decimated Americans' Lowest-Cost Housing Option," the researchers at Pew Research detail the various policies that state and local governments used to get rid of SROs. The reason why governments went after SROs was because even as early as the early 1900s, SROs were seen as run-down, neglected, dilapidated. They were stigmatized as a public nuisance and blamed for such outbreaks as pneumonia and tuberculosis. Between the 1950s to 1980s, there were numerous local-level, piecemeal government regulations that severely curtailed SRO usage:

• Los Angeles and San Francisco rewrote zoning codes to prohibit rooming houses and share-living arrangements. 
• Chicago adopted stricter building and housing codes (e.g., imposed requirements for private bathrooms, minimum square footage) that effectively outlawed traditional SRO designs. 
• San Diego used code enforcement and licensing crackdowns to close SROs for safety or sanitation violations. 
• Seattle used redevelopment campaigns in "blighted" areas to clear out residential units where SROs were concentrated in exchange for higher-value development. Other countries similarly subsidizer to demolish these areas courtesy of the Federal Urban Renewal programs, especially Title I of the 1949 Housing Act
• Denver provided housing subsidies for traditional apartment-style housing that effectively sidelined SROs.

There could be better health inspections, rehabilitation incentives, or proper building management to make SROs more habitable, but these regulations that de facto eliminated SROs were overkill. SROs were the lowest-cost housing for individuals in need without requiring government subsidies or intervention. Primarily as a result of this crackdown, the overall SRO housing supply was reduced by 2.5 million units. This especially puts a crunch on the housing supply for those in the lowest-cost tier. This has placed undue demand on government services, subsidized housing, and homeless shelters because they cannot meet the housing demand. Just as one example, about half of the men who entered homeless shelters in 1980 were previously living in SROs. Without SROs, low-income individuals have very few alternatives of places to live, thereby contributing to homelessness, as we will see shortly.

This pushes low-income renters into larger, more expensive units when all they needed was a single room. As the Pew Research pointed out, an SRO in 1924 only cost $230 in today's dollars, which is below the $391 per month that an individual at the federal poverty line can afford in rent. Contrast that to the $1,205 that a median one-bedroom apartment costs. This should not be a mystery. Regulations requiring larger units crowds out the smaller units from the market and forces low-income individuals into more expensive units than necessary. These zoning regulations put additional strain on housing supply.

I first raised the alarm on overregulation in the housing market in 2017, citing a range of studies on how land-use restrictions reduce supply and inflate housing costs. Eight years later, the data has only grown stronger and the consequences more visible. These SRO-related land-use regulations are tantamount to a production quota, which restricts housing supply while jacking up housing costs. In the case of SROs, it is especially problematic because it constricts housing supply for the poorest of Americans, thereby squarely and concretely affecting low-income Americans. 

The Manhattan Institute found that areas with greater housing regulations also had a greater homelessness population (see below). While a compelling pattern, it stops short of showing causation. However, a peer-reviewed study from the University of Maryland fills that gap. The author found that land use regulations are responsible for increasing homelessness by 9 to 12 percent (Dawkins, 2023). In other words, restrictive land-use regulations are not merely correlated with homelessness. They are shown to cause increased homelessness.

There is a way to provide a modern-day equivalent of an SRO that is well-designed, hygienic, clean, and up to code. To do so, the government needs to get out of the way. Modifying current zoning laws to include small, shared-unit formats is a necessary first step. Second, remove the stringent codes in order to allow for smaller units and shared bathrooms and kitchens. Relax permitting regulations to allow for conversion of older building into SROs, especially since it is 25-35 percent cheaper than new construction.

Millions already live in shared housing without stigma, whether it is college dormitories, senior co-housing (aka "Golden Girls" Homes), professional households in which young professionals rent individuals in shared homes to split rent, transitional housing, monasteries, boarding schools, and military barracks. States and cities need to remove regulatory barriers and provide incentives to create low-housing options so that we can reduce homelessness, help financially vulnerable Americans, and help keep America's streets safer and cleaner.

The Cost of Trump's Cashless Bail Crackdown: A Waste of Taxpayer Dollars and an Erosion of Justice

President Trump is at it again signing executive orders this week. One of them had to do with making flag burning unconstitutional. I do not need to cover that executive order today because I already covered it in 2016. There was another executive order that Trump signed this week about cashless bail, threatening to cut off funding for those jurisdictions that implement cashless bail. 

Cashless bail is a system that allows criminals accused of a crime to be released before trial without having to pay money. It is meant to be a system that is based on risk to public safety rather than ability to pay bail. Trump finds that cashless bail is a threat to order and public safety, not to mention a drain on public finances. That is why Trump's executive order will restrict the "Federal policies and resources" to jurisdictions with cashless bail policies. 

For some conservative policy groups who are for cash bail, cashless bail is a system that prioritizes the rights of violent offenders over the general public while releasing repeat offenders with impunity. Forgetting questionable constitutionality for a moment, disincentivizing cashless bail is an unwise move that does not help with reducing crime, has disparate impact on minorities, and is a waste of taxpayer dollars. 

Effects on Crime and Public Safety

Cashless bail is a relatively new policy concept. The earliest implementers were New Jersey in 2017, and New York started around 2019-2020. Even so, long-term data is starting to emerge. Jurisdictions who implemented cashless bail have been compared to those who did not in quasi-experimental studies. The Brennan Center for Justice (Craigie and Grawert, 2024) used a Difference-in-Differences (DiD) method to compare 22 cities with bail reform to 11 cities that did not. While there are rare instances in which defendants commit serious crimes, this study found that there were no statistically significant differences in crime rates, whether violent crime or property crime. 

Furthermore, a study from the Journal of Criminal Justice shows that longer pretrial retention translates into quicker new arrests (Silver et al., 2024). What this means is that unnecessary jail time could increase public risk while harming the individuals and families that this policy is claiming to protect. A study from the University of Chicago puts that recidivism rate as increasing by 6 to 9 percent as a result of cash bail (Gupta et al., 2016).

Racial and Economic Disparities

Cash bail disproportionately harms the poor and minorities. As of mid-2023, the Department of Justice data shows that 70 percent of those in jail were not convicted and were awaiting trial. While not broken down by race, this finding strongly suggests that the racial proportions of the pretrial population closely mirror those of the overall jail population, i.e., 48% White, 35% Black, and 14% Hispanic. This would indicate that cash bail disproportionately affects Black suspects. For those who cannot pay, the jail experience is coercive and horrific enough to pressure them into pleading guilty to a lower charge to avoid jail time, regardless of innocence. 

Considering that the median bail is $10,000, those who get harmed by this experience are those who do not have the money to afford bail. This ends up creating a two-tier justice system: one for those with money and one for those who are not well off. Because pretrial detention increases the likelihood of guilty pleas, those held pretrial are four times more likely to be sentenced than those released before trial. It also undermines the legal concept that one is innocent until proven guilty.

Fiscal Costs

Beyond the moral concerns, having increased reliance on cash bail translates into greater fiscal costs. In 2017, the Prison Policy Initiative estimated that cash bail cost $13.6 billion, which would be $18.1 billion in 2025 dollars. In 2023, the American Bar Association estimated those costs to be $14 billion. This is phenomenal considering that the pretrial jail population increased by 433 percent between 1970 and 2011. 

Removing cash bail would go a long way in lowering the burden on corrections systems and the mass incarceration that I criticized back in 2015. Then there is the broader economic costs. Research from the Brookings Institution shows (Miller and Wolfers, 2021) that those experience pretrial detention face a reduction of employment probability of about 9.4 percent, which translates into an average income lifetime loss of $29,000. Brookings estimated that eliminating money bail could increase aggregate U.S. income by up to $80.9 billion per year.

Conclusion

As we can see, there is no compelling public safety justification for cash bail. It is fiscally irresponsible and an affront to the limited government that conservatives are supposed to support to have such high rates of unnecessary incarceration. Rather than punishing poverty and disproportionately harming minorities, we should move away from the outdated cash bail system and adopt evidence-based alternatives that assess flight risk and public safety more effectively. Cashless bail is not about being soft on crime. It is about being smart on justice, fair in process, and responsible with taxpayer dollars.

Trump's 1% Mistake: How a Remittance Tax Will Fuel the Immigration It Aims to Stop

Last month, President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation bill that had quite a bit in it considering it is over 1,100 pages long. As I mentioned shortly after the enactment, I would probably need to cover other provisions in the future and here we are. The Left-leaning outlet Vox brought one such provision to my attention: a one percent remittances tax. A remittances tax is an excise tax imposed on the non-commercial transfer of money that individuals send from one country to another. Remittances are most common for immigrants who send money to their families in their home country. 

Despite of what some might think, remitted dollars are not "lost" because the U.S.' global dominance means that the dollars return in the form of trade, investment, and dollar demand. Rather than disappear, remittances act more like temporary outflows. So why did the Republicans decide to tax remittances? In the Committee report's own words:  

The Committee believes that the ability of non-citizens and non-nationals of the United States to send payments to individuals in other countries through the system of remittance transfers may encourage illegal immigration and lead to the over reliance of some jurisdictions on the receipt of such remittance flows.

In short, the justification is curtailing illegal immigration. Some might argue that because it was initially proposed at 5 percent and eventually lowered to 1 percent, that somehow makes it better. Guess what? It really does not, and not simply because the 1 percent applies to all remittance senders, including U.S. citizens (although bank accounts and U.S.-issued credit cards and debit cards are exempt). This tax will have many ramifications both in the United States and the global economy. 

Taxes have two main functions: to generate revenue and to discourage behavior. First, let us take a look at the revenue. In the case of the remittances tax, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated that it would generate $10 billion in revenue over the next decade. The Center for Global Development (CGD) puts the estimate at an even lower $4 billion in revenue over that time period. Remittances taxes imposed in other countries offer little hope. An International Monetary Fund (IMF) study found that the other two nations that notably have a remittances a tax, Gabon and Palau, did so while generating a negligible enough amount of revenue where both countries scrapped the tax.

I am not too optimistic about the revenue estimates considering that the compliance costs will diminish actual revenue, including requirements for financial institutions to distinguish between taxable and exempt payment methods, maintain detailed transaction records, and manage refundable tax credits for eligible senders. The compliance will also violate data privacy since the financial institutions will have to collect and share such sensitive personal data such as citizenship status and payment method details. While it will hit low-income and immigrant communities most heavily, U.S. citizens may face privacy risks due to increased financial surveillance, documentation requirements for refunds, and potential misclassification or data exposure. 

What behavior does a remittance tax discourage? Sending money to other countries. This might sound like a win for the anti-immigration Republicans, but it will not be. Remittances outpace foreign direct investment and overseas development aid at a rate of 3 to 4 times. Destinations include such nations as Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and India, which are among the top countries of origin for the undocumented workers that Trump does not want illegally entering the country. 

A study from the Center for European, Governance, and Economic Research found that a one percent increase in the cost of sending remittances translates into a 1.6 percent decrease in remittances sent (Martínez-Zarzoso et al., 2020). This is a big deal because remittances account for at least 3 percent of GDP for 78 countries (World Bank). The Center for Global Development used the aforementioned study along with bilateral remittances data from the World Bank to find that Mexico that stands to lose, at $1.55 billion annually. 

In terms of percentage of GNI, El Salvador, Honduras, Jamaica, and Guatemala will feel it the most (see below).

A one percent tax does not sound like a lot, but it translates into money that never reaches people in developing countries. For example, remittances in Mexico have helped pay for medical bills and support pensions and public services. With underdeveloped banking systems, cash is often how many in developing countries receive money. As the Overseas Development Institute brings up, remittances are effective because have a greater impact on poverty reduction because they directly reach a greater share of the population and more poor households, not to mention that the greater purchasing power results in greater economic utility. By curtailing funds that help people in developing countries that reduce poverty, cope with financial shocks, and weather natural disasters, life will become that much more unstable for people in these countries. The increased instability created as a result will incentivize citizens in developing countries to want to emigrate to the United States, which undermines Trump's stated goal of curtailing illegal immigration.

Then there is the matter of crime. Taxing remittances incentivizes sender to bypass regulated services providers and push their transactions into informal or underground channels, which like all underground markets, are less transparent and harder to monitor.  This shift makes it more difficult to trace illicit flows, thereby undermining national security and foreign policy interests. Because this will push immigrants to underground options, they will be exposed to greater fraud, theft, and organized crime exploitation.  

On top of all of this, this remittances tax has the hallmarks of inferior tax policy. It is a form of double taxation because migrants already pay an income tax to the host country. It is a regressive tax because remittances are most commonly sent to the poor families of migrants, thereby increasing the burden of poverty. This remittances tax is also non-neutral because it discourages an arrangement where a household is split between the United States and another country. This tax is targeted, inconsistent with an overall tax design for a country without a value-added tax (VAT). The targeted nature of this tax is hypocritical considering that the GOP is purportedly the party of family values and these remittances senders are trying to help their families in poverty-stricken parts of the world.

Ultimately, the remittances tax is not about controlling immigration. This misguided and counterproductive tax will weaken economies abroad, disrupt families, and burden law-abiding individuals with needless bureaucracy and privacy violations. It is a tax that raises little revenue, targets vulnerable communities, and increases government surveillance. This policy ends up depreciating the American values of opportunity and responsibility that made this country great. This tax will contribute to the global inequalities that fuel migration in the first place. Instead of deterring it, this tax will fuel the immigration at a considerable human and economic cost.