Liberation Day Tariffs? More Like Economic Captivity Threatening the U.S.' Economic Future

Since the beginning of his second term, President Trump has aggressively pursued tariffs. He implemented tariffs on Canada, China, and Mexico under the guise of the War on Drugs. There were the 25 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum, as well as the tariffs on automobiles and auto parts. Trump created more tariff turbulence with the so-called "reciprocal" tariffs. Announced on April 2 during what Trump labeled as "Liberation Day," these new tariffs entail a basic universal tariff of 10 percent along with additional tariffs ranging from 10 to 50 percent, depending on the country. Shortly after that announcement, I detailed how a) these tariffs are not truly reciprocal, but based on shoddy math; and b) Trump's rationale for these tariffs, the trade deficit, is baseless. 

Then in May, the U.S. Court of International Trade unanimously ruled that Trump's "Liberation" Day tariffs, along with tariffs adopted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (e.g., the fentanyl-related tariffs), are unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court decided to not rule on the constitutionality of these tariffs before its last session was over. As such, a number of the country-specific "Liberation" Day tariffs (e.g., Brazil, Canada, India) went into effect last Thursday. The baseline 10 percent tariff from the "Liberation Day" announcement has been in effect since April 5. In 2023, I wrote a piece on what a universal 10 percent tariff would look like. Basically, it it is a regressive tax on U.S. consumers that will raise prices, strain supply chains, and particularly punish small businesses and ordinary households. But more on that in a moment. 

I already wrote about the fentanyl-related tariffs and the "Liberation" Day tariffs would have had a much greater impact on the economy, which is why I am focusing on those tariffs instead. The "Liberation" Day tariffs will constitute the largest tax increase as a percent of GDP since 1982 (Tax Foundation). The economic effects of these "Liberation Day" "reciprocal" tariffs had they been implemented cannot be overstated. Here are some estimates of economic impact from what these "Liberation Day" "reciprocal" tariffs would have cost (unless otherwise specified):

• American Action Forum: In April, the estimated cost to U.S. consumers and businesses was up to $371 billion a year. However, in August, AAF amended that estimate to over $400 billion, which is mainly due to the larger 30-percent tariff imposed on the European Union since the initial "Liberation Day" announcement. 
• JPMorgan: Last month, JPMorgan estimated that the effect of Trump's tariffs would increase the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) index by 0.2-0.3 percentage points. This is to say that these tariffs will have inflationary effects, which will probably give the Federal Reserve pause in lowering interest rates. 
• Tax Foundation: An estimated $3.1 trillion over ten years ($310 per year), with the average household cost amounting to a $2,100 for the average household in 2025 alone.
• Wharton School of Business: Reduce GDP by 8 percent and wages by 7 percent. A middle-income household faces a $58,000 lifetime loss in earnings. These tariffs would be twice as distorting as increasing the corporate tax from 21 percent to 36 percent, which is impressive given how distorting corporate taxes are. 
• Yale University: In April, Yale's Budget Lab estimated the following effects of the "Liberation" Day tariffs: consumer prices to increase by 1.3 percent in the short-run; the average household would lose $2,100 in purchasing power; and a reduction U.S. GDP growth by 0.5 percentage points. 
• In its August update, the Budget Lab did not separate the "Liberation" Day tariffs. However, it confirms that with all the tariffs, the effective tariff rate will be 17.5 percent, which is the highest since 1935. This aggregate effect is estimated to translate into an average per household loss of $2,400 in purchasing power for the year 2025; a US GDP decline of 0.5 pp; and unemployment rising 0.3 percent (or a loss of 497,000 jobs). 

Keep in mind that these estimates are generally for the "reciprocal" tariffs alone.  When you compound these tariffs with the other tariffs, the overall effects of Trump's trade war are all the more glaring. As of August 1, the Tax Foundation's model puts its estimates of Trump's tariffs at a GDP reduction of 0.8 percent, a job reduction of 788,000 full-time equivalent (FTE), and capital stock decreasing by 0.7 percent. 

I want to point out something else that the American Enterprise Institute brought to my attention. A 0.8 percent GDP reduction might not sound like a lot at first. However, when you compare it to what the Congressional Budget Office projected long-term GDP to be before the "reciprocal" tariffs were in play (see below), it's a sizable reduction in GDP. 

The damage to the United States exceeds what think-tanks estimate or mainstream economic theory predict. We have seen this tariff terror before. During his first term, Trump's tariffs resulted in 166,000 fewer jobs, wages reduced by 0.14 percent, a GDP reduced by 0.21 percent, and an annual price tag of $51 billion. Even President Bush Jr.'s tariffs translated into 200,000 jobs lost and $4 billion in lost wages. 

Adding to this, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) analyzed tariffs across 151 countries from 1963 to 2014 (Furceri et al., 2019). Guess what the IMF found? "Tariff increases lead, in the medium term, to economically and statistically significant declines in domestic output and productivity. Tariff increases also result in more unemployment, higher inequality, and real exchange rate appreciation, but only small effects on the trade balance." That last bit about the trade balance is more important in these latest round of tariffs because trying to fix the trade balance is Trump's supposed justification for these farkakte "reciprocal" tariffs in the first place.

It would not have been surprising to see that these tariffs would have harmed investor and consumer confidence. History does not bode well for these sorts of tariffs. Back in 1930, President Herbert Hoover signed off on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Smoot-Hawley did not cause the Great Depression because the United States was already in an economic downturn at that point. But it sure made matters worse by turning a nascent recession into a full-blown depression (e.g., Mitchener et al., 2021).

Trump seems hellbent on playing Russian Roulette with repeating a history that no one ought to repeat. What Trump would have been "liberating" Americans from with his "Liberation" Day "reciprocal" tariffs is higher wages, cheaper goods, and a better quality of life.  These tariffs will make it more difficult for the everyday American to afford food, clothing, transportation, and household goods. American manufacturers will be walloped as well because they rely and parts and inputs from other countries. Those parts and inputs are about to get a whole lot more expensive with these tariffs. 

As I pointed out last October, Trump's tariffs do not help the working class or the struggling small business. It will benefit politically connected corporations and unions. Trump's "reciprocal" tariffs are so bad that economists, think tanks, and advocacy groups that have historically been in favor of tariffs think Trump is taking it too far. The United States should not have idiotic tariff policies because other countries do. No one can tax their way to prosperity, whether it is a wealth tax or a tariff. Maybe this time, the American people will learn this lesson the hard way.

From Job Loss to Automation: There Is a Real Price of Minimum Wage Laws

I have found fewer economic topics that have been more divisive for economists than the minimum wage debate. For advocates, it is a moral and economic imperative to help provide a living wage so no one ends up in poverty. For critics, minimum wage has unintended consequences that make matters worse, especially for the low-skilled workers minimum wage was meant to help. As minimum wages increase higher and higher, a new wave of research gives us a sense of what is to come with higher minimum wages. Today, I will cover some of the most recent research conducted on the topic of minimum wage.

The first is a working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research on the increased minimum wage for fast food workers in California that was released last month (Clemens et al., 2025). This research found that increasing minimum wage to $20 decreased employment by 2.7 percent, or a reduction of 18,000 people. This is even more jarring given that this minimum wage increase only applied to fast-food restaurants with over 60 locations. 

Why does this happen? This is not mere theoretical. It is Supply and Demand 101 in action. Two phenomena take place when the minimum wage becomes higher than what businesses are paying. One is an increase in people who want to work for the higher wage. The second phenomenon is that fewer businesses want to pay, since workers are now more expensive. As a result of these two phenomena, the result is a labor surplus in the market, which is another way of saying that minimum wage causes greater unemployment. 

This NBER research makes a new contribution to the debate. Minimum wage proponents often argue that the benefits of higher pay outweigh the job losses, as this 2024 research paper does. However, the new NBER paper estimates that 29 to 49 percent of the wage gains were offset by job losses. This does not even get into the social or psychological costs of unemployment, not to mention how unemployment has the potential to slow one's career development and worsen the trajectory for lifetime earnings. 

This segues us into an interrelated phenomenon: automation. Automation is the use of machines, technology, and software to perform tasks that were previously performed by humans. I call automation interrelated because not all job losses are due to automation and not all automation results in job losses. 

All the same, automation is a response to higher minimum wage laws. Last week, the think tank Cato Institute released a policy brief entitled The Minimum Wage and Automation (Nain and Wang, 2025). This brief explores how minimum wage hikes led to greater automation-related patent applications. The researchers found that when there is a 10 percent increase in these patent applications, there is a 1.6 percent decline in employment share for workers in routine jobs without an education, as well as a 1.2 percent drop in their wages. How does this happen? 

By definition, minimum wage is an increase in labor costs. Minimum wage laws disproportionately impact industries that rely on low-wage, routine-task workers. In response, firms eyeing automation either decide to adopt existing automation technology or invest in new automation technology. This demand drives innovation from manufacturing and tech industries, which increases the opportunities to supply automation services to other end-users. This means that as automation increases, jobs entailing repetitive routine tasks are more susceptible to being permanently replaced. 

Minimum wage increasing automation is a finding that is confirmed by a study from Nature released this past June finding that an increase in minimum wage in Europe resulted in an increase in robot installations (Sharfaei and Thavorn, 2025). This Nature study shows that the deleterious effects of minimum wage are not confined to a certain industry or a specific country. 

Laws of economics do not get suspended simply because proponents want their favored policy to work. There are real-life consequences and tradeoffs to minimum wage laws. Job loss and automation are two outcomes. There are also the effects of reduced work hours, increased consumer prices, prolonged recessions, and an increased federal budget deficit. It is no wonder that minimum wage does nothing to reduce poverty. In the end, policies driven by good intentions that ignore economic realities only serve to hurt the people they were meant to help. Workers deserve better than having to navigate a labor market distorted by wage mandates that make it more difficult to find and keep a job. 

Pulling the Plug: Why NPR and PBS (Or Any Public Media) Should Not Be Taxpayer-Funded

For over half a century, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) has supported public radio and television, including National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). Last week, CPB announced that it will be shutting down next month. This announcement came in response to President Trump rescinding $1.1 billion in funding for the nonprofit over the next couple of years. While Trump can hardly be considered a libertarian, he has at least downsized multiple government agencies, including the Department of Education, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and now CPB. I would prefer he tackle such major budgetary drivers as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. At least on this topic, Trump and I are on the same wavelength: the government has no business funding public media. 

Let us start with the fact that PBS' and NPR's funding primarily comes from private sources. About 15 percent of PBS' funding comes from the federal government, whereas it is under 2 percent of annual revenue for NPR. To be fair, there are additional federal funds that flow into the affiliate stations and the affiliate stations in turn pay NPR or PBS. Government revenue represents about 10 percent of local affiliate revenue on average, although that could be upwards of 25 percent for rural stations. When factoring in that indirect support, that means that PBS gets about a quarter of its revenue from the federal government, whereas it is a bit over 10 percent for NPR. Since most of their revenue does not come from the government, the argument that PBS or NPR would automatically disappear is unconvincing.

I grew up watching Sesame Street. I have fond memories of Big Bird and learning to count from Count von Count. It was enjoyable and educational television. PBS and NPR have produced award-winning programming, so they have the potential to survive without the federal funding. This potential is greater given the median NPR-watching household makes $100,000, which is over $30,000 more than the median U.S. household. PBS and NPR already have the fundraising mechanisms in place to raise more funds, the brand loyalty and trust, and an affluent viewership. Their programming should be able to stand on their own if it really is that top-notch. Similar to the argument against student loan "forgiveness," is it really fair if the average worker is funding programming for people with six-figure incomes? Is this really the most efficient or even most equitable use of taxpayer money? 

This brings me to my next point and stating the obvious: the year is 2025 and the media landscape is different than what it once was. Unlike in the 1960s, there are thousands of media outlets worldwide that the American people can access, including cable television, podcasts, streaming platforms (e.g., Netflix, Hulu, YouTube), newspapers, and magazines. Public media no longer fills the unique gap it once did. NPR and PBS are but two media providers in a diverse and competitive marketplace. If people want to consume programming from PBS and NPR that they consider high-quality, that is fine. I am not calling for PBS and NPR to be shut down. What I am asking is that NPR and PBS programming no loner be taxpayer-funded, but rather competes with the other media providers in the market. 

This brings me to the theme of political bias. There is bound to be at least some bias in reporting the news. Editors make multiple choices, including what stories to cover or not cover, what perspective to take, and what language to use. There can be an argument made that there is a Left-leaning bias at NPR. This is not only because NPR is about 7 times more likely to be consumed for news by Democrats than Republicans. An insider of NPR, Uri Berliner, documented how ideological conformity and groupthink have eroded NPR's editorial balance.  

Although Berliner's account corroborates bias, it would not matter if it had not. The deeper problem inherently remains that any news outlet funded by the government risks politicization, either because of perception of state endorsement or actual influence. Public trust erodes when journalism and government are financially entangled. 

And once that bias creeps in, government funding is not merely questionable, but dangerous. At that point, you are not subsidizing the news, but a narrative. Media outlets have a right to air their perspective, but none are entitled to public funding because the government should remain neutral regarding public discourse. Would the NPR-listening crowd be okay with the government funding Fox News, Breitbart, or the Washington Examiner? I very much doubt it! Discontinuing funding for CPB does not violate the First Amendment. Rather, it reinforces it because free speech best thrives when it is free of state sponsorship. 

During the Reagan years, former NPR chair Frank Mankiewicz tried to have NPR become independent of federal funding, and I think he was right to do so. Ultimately, this is not about silencing NPR or PBS. This is about having these media providers succeed on their own merits in an open, diverse, competitive market. NPR and PBS have the infrastructure, audience, and financial base to do so. Other media outlets did not require government subsidies and neither should NPR or PBS.

Much like I argued in 2017, taxpayers should not be on the hook for $535 million a year for programming that caters disproportionately to wealthier Americans or that carries a partisan tilt. In a country that is at least in theory supposed to support freedom of speech and limited government, it follows that public discourse should be shaped by the people, not underwritten by politicians in Washington, DC. If PBS and NPR are truly indispensable, they will survive without the largesse of the federal government. 

Fluoride Is Great for Teeth, But Is It the Government's Job to Fluoridate Water?

President Trump's second term has been shaped by controversial decisions, including making English an official language, imposing tariff rates we have not seen in over a century, deporting undocumented workers, and using price controls on prescription drugs. Out of his confirmations, I would contend that the most controversial of all of them is Trump's Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Kennedy has spoken out against vaccine safety, opined that vaccines cause autism, and he even said that COVID was "ethnically targeted" to spare Ashkenazi Jews and the Chinese, as if viruses are capable of targeting a specific ethnic group. 

Kennedy's vision for what he would like to do as HHS Secretary is detailed in his Make America Health Again (MAHA) report. One of the major controversies that Kennedy has managed to drudge up is his take on fluoride. Kennedy has long been against the practice of fluoridating water, calling it "industrial waste." He even tried urging Trump to advise U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from their water treatment. The topic caught my eye enough to blog on the topic because I noticed that the Food and Drug Administration is proceeding with its plan to ban prescription fluoride supplements. Opposition to fluoride is nothing new. This opposition dates back to the 1940s, which is when the practice of water fluoridation emerged. It also made an appearance in the 1964 film Dr. Strangelove. 

Analyzing the Health Implications

One of the main reasons for opposition to water fluoridation is for health concerns. The question is whether fluoride actually has unintended health consequences. The meta-analysis that recently made the news shows that, at worst, the decline in pediatric IQ from fluoridation is 1 to 2 points (Taylor et al., 2025). It is worth pointing out that the fluoride levels studied in that controversial meta-analysis were double the recommended amount in U.S. federal guidelines. There is also no link shown between fluoridation and cancer. The National Toxicology Program's 2020 review concluded that high levels of fluoride exposure were problematic, but found scant evidence of harm in the lower levels used in fluoridation.  

While there are some gaps in the research (particularly for larger doses of fluoride), what we know with the best available research is that fluoridation in small doses is shown to have benefits. My support is not mere opinion. It is supported by the American Dental Association, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), World Health Organization (WHO), and Royal Society for Public Health have all advocated for water fluoridation. There is no credible scientific body that currently advises against the practice of water fluoridation.

The strengthened tooth enamel with fluoridation reduces the rate of tooth decay (Nassar and Brizuela, 2023), which could be a reduction of tooth decay as much as 25 percent. This, in turn, reduces the needs for fillings, root canals, crowns, and other dental expenses. The primary reason that fluoridation of water became a practice is because it has been widely accepted as a cost-effective public health measure to mitigate cavities, tooth decay, and dental disparities. All else being equal, fluoridated communities have lower rates of dental decay.

Here is my "on the other hand" argument. There are certain countries that have fluoridated their water, such as the United States, United Kingdom, Ireland, Hong Kong, and Australia. However, the vast majority of countries on the planet have not done so. A study from the 20th century shows that countries that failed to adopt water fluoridation experienced comparable declines in dental decay to those that did fluoridate (Diesendorf, 1986). As you can see from the World Health Organization's report on oral health, there are countries without water fluoridation that enjoy comparable dental health to those that do. 

The maps above give me at least some pause because one could argue that diet, oral hygiene practices, and access to dental care also play a role in dental health. On the other hand, there is an argument to be made that water fluoridation is a helpful public health measure. For argument's sake, let us assume that fluoride unquestionably has positive health benefits. Should the government still be fluoridating water? 

Ethical Issues

My biggest issue with the government fluoridating water has to do with informed consent. As long as you are not hurting somebody else, you should be able to get to decide what substances you consume, regardless of what a healthcare provider might recommend. To give you a sense of how I take it seriously, I have advocated for consumption of marijuana and of 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. In this respect, mandated water fluoridation violates the concept of bodily autonomy.  

People should be responsible for their own personal dental health, whether that is a healthy diet or proper brushing technique. Even if the decision to fluoridate water made sense in the mid-20th century, it does not make as much sense in 2025. Those who want to use fluoride for dental health have multiple ways to do so, including fluoride toothpaste, fluoride mouthwash, supplements, varnish, and fluoridated salt. The challenge with these alternatives is that they require consistent usage, access to resources, and dedication. Conversely, an advantage of water fluoridation is that it is a passive, population-wide baseline of protection that is more reliable. 

I would be more inclined to support water fluoridation if there were a robust opt-out system. Even as I supported the COVID vaccines in 2021, I still have believed that mandating the vaccines was unnecessary (see here, here, here, and here). Vaccines have a viable way to opt out of getting vaccines. One could argue that it is possible to opt out with fluoridation, whether through bottled water, purified water, or purchasing a water purifier. There are also the possibilities of implementing free access to non-fluoridated water, subsidized filters, or financial assistance for those who cannot afford bottled or purified water, although these options would all but inevitably involve at least some government intervention.Plus, keep in mind theCareQuest Institute for Oral Health released a survey last month showing that only 6 percent believe that water fluoridation should be banned. While it is cumbersome, you would think that those who are the most against water fluoridation would have already implemented these workarounds. Even with the default being fluoridated water, there is still autonomy for the individual to change it if so desired. 

I would also point out that a private company entering the market to provide a non-fluoridated option is impractical, at least in a U.S. context. Building parallel water delivery systems, e.g., pipes, pumps, treatment facilities, is prohibitively expensive. Zoning and utility regulations, along with public utility commissions, de facto block new entrants from entering the market. Plus, there is not much in the way of market demand for a private company to enter the market simply to provide non-fluoridated water. As such, water utilities is one of the notable exceptions in which a government monopoly makes the most sense. Since water utilities end up being a natural monopoly, someone has to decide how the water is treated, which brings us to the next section. 

Individual and Public Healthcare Costs Due to No Water Fluoridation

I think back to when I made a libertarian argument last March in favor of the government supporting the PEPFAR program for HIV/AIDS prevention. I could make a similar argument for water fluoridation. Fluoridating water is a minimal intervention and has a high return on investment. This would explain why the CDC estimates that $1 spent on fluoridation saves about $20 in dental costs, whereas the ADA estimates that it is high as $38 in savings per dollar spent. 

More to the point, this relatively small intervention can save us the headache of more government intervention down the road. If you remove water fluoridation, it could lead to an expansion of Medicare and Medicaid dental coverage, new health care regulations, a federal mandate for dental insurance coverage, dental care subsidies, or price controls similar to the ones that President Trump imposed on prescription drugs earlier this year. Fluoridation falls into a rare category of public policy intervention that paradoxically protects liberty by preventing greater government intrusion.

The reality is that the United States does not have a free-market healthcare system. Healthcare in the U.S. has major elements of socialization with such programs as Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Affairs healthcare system. Since healthcare costs are socialized in this country, the aggregation of poor dental practice can add up quickly. This argument is significant since 51 percent of Americans brush twice daily, which is the amount recommended by the American Dental Association. If a third cannot follow these basic protocols, what are the odds that they would make sure they are taking fluoride alternatives consistently enough to make a difference?

That behavioral failure is a problem in a healthcare system in which healthcare costs are socialized. The fact that about half of Americans cannot manage basic dental hygiene means that non-intervention also has hidden costs. One study estimated that water fluoridation saves the United States $6.5 billion annually [in 2013 dollars] (O'Connell et al., 2016), which would be $8.9 billion in current dollars. Removing water fluoridation would contribute to rising health care costs, much like we have seen take place with obesity raising healthcare costs for all. 

Should the Government Fluoridate Water?

I struggled writing this piece because both sides of the water fluoridation debate make compelling arguments. I genuinely respect individual autonomy and I am an advocate for limited government (emphasis on the word "limited"). Especially with alternatives such as fluoride toothpaste, I take issue with the violation of bodily autonomy. While I understand the ethical implications of mandating water fluoridation, they also become less persuasive given the size of the public benefit of water fluoridation and the existence of workarounds for water fluoridation. Plus, fluoridation has been implemented for over eight decades and it has not resulted in mass medication or erosion of medical autonomy on the whole, thereby negating the slippery slope argument. 

As difficult as it is for me to say, I have to say that water fluoridation is warranted given the circumstances, even from a libertarian lens. I remind myself that there have been other warranted interventions similar to water fluoridation, including water chlorination to prevent cholera and typhoid; iodized salt mandates to address iodine deficiency; traffic signals that lower accidents; and seatbelt laws to reduce fatalities and injuries from automobile accidents. I am not necessarily defending these examples on moral grounds per se, but rather showing that there is a long-established precedent of minor health-protective interventions with a significant return on investment (ROI).

In a country where dental costs are socialized through Medicare and Medicaid, the collective financial burden of preventable dental disease justifies this minimal, narrowly tailored, low-cost intervention tied to a shared resource. The intervention is tightly defined, the evidence base is solid, and the ROI is high. Water fluoridation is a pragmatic approach that recognizes real-world trade-offs while preventing the need for far more exorbitant, intrusive, and coercive government intervention in the future. Since some government action is inevitable, the least intrusive option that yields measurable benefits is preferable to a more coercive alternative. 

Much like I realized when arguing in favor of PEPFAR last March, this conclusion is not a perfect fit with libertarian ideals. In an ideal world, I would like for there to be no government intervention and for the healthcare market to be privatized. However, a world with more limited government is best achieved in practice when balancing principles with real-world application to find the "least worst intervention" in a deeply flawed healthcare system, especially when considering that water utilities are operated as a natural monopoly. Having the government fluoridate water is not a betrayal of liberty in this case because a modest, limited, and well-tailored intervention in an imperfect world beats the alternative. Given the realities of the water market and the science of fluoridation, the pragmatic libertarian in me would rather support a minimal, practical compromise that helps preserve liberty in the long-run than allow for an alternative that allows for government largesse to proliferate even further. 61 percent of Americans brush at least twice daily

A Famine of Truth: Hamas and the U.N. Are to Blame for Food Shortages in Gaza

Fighting between Israel and Hamas has been ongoing for over two years in the Gaza Strip and there seems to be no end in sight. There are still 50 hostages being held by Hamas, in addition to the loss of life of Israeli soldiers. The Palestinian side has not only experienced a loss in civilian life, but food insecurity has also been an ongoing issue for Gazans throughout this conflict. Starvation of civilians is as heartbreaking as it is inevitable in a war zone, and it has made rounds in the news cycle once again.

This past Tuesday, the United Nations sounded the alarm that famine in Gaza is imminent. The famine warnings are bad enough that France, Germany, and the United Kingdom called for a ceasefire this past Friday. The mainstream media condemned Israel, including such outlets as the Guardian, CNN, NBC, and the New York Times. Of course, you did not see that sort of condemnation with the economic sanctions on Syria making lives more difficult for Syrian civilians, but I digress.

The famine accusation is nothing new. The World Health Organization said back in March 2024 that it was "imminent." In January 2024, the United Nations said that Gazans were facing famine in January 2024, although the UN's Famine Review Committee later got around to admitting in a May 2024 report that the allegations of an ongoing famine are unsubstantiated, as was a follow-up November 2024 report. Yet neither the United Nations nor the WHO have formally declared a famine as of date, in spite of warning about it for months. This might be because there has not been a famine. As we will see shortly, the situation on the ground is more complex than the mainstream media lets on. 

Let us start with how the people of Gaza got into this mess in the first place. Hamas, the de facto ruling power in Gaza, started a war with Israel by raping, kidnapping, and murdering civilians on October 7, 2023. If Hamas did not instigate a war with a superior military power by committing the worst pogrom against Jews since the Holocaust, this suffering in Gaza could have been avoided. After all, in what other conflict or war in history has the "international community" asked a country to feed its enemy after the enemy attacked its civilians? Were the Allied powers supposed to provide humanitarian aid to Nazi Germany? Do we expect Ukraine to feed Russians after Russia started the Russo-Ukrainian War? I do not think so. 

One could argue that because Israel has a genocidal neighbor on its western border intent on wiping out Israel, Israel has no moral obligation to help out such an enemy. This also does not take into account the reality that Hamas could have ended the conflict months ago by returning the hostages, but has not done so. Gazans could live in peace with their Israeli neighbors, but choose not to because the majority of Gazans would rather not have an Israeli nation exist. Even if you want to cite the Fourth Geneva Convention (Article 23) as a basis for Israel to help facilitate humanitarian aid, there is still a minor wrinkle in all of this: Israel has been and continues to facilitate the distribution of humanitarian aid to Gazan citizens. 

From January 2024 to July 2024, Israel supplied 478,229 metric tons of food to Gazans (Fliss-Isakov et al., 2025). This is the equivalent of about 3,000 calories a day, which is above the average recommended caloric intake is in the United States. It is not merely Israeli data that confirms the entry of 1.9 million tons of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip. The U.N. database for Supplies and Dispatch Tracking (see below) shows that humanitarian aid has been entering the war zone throughout the conflict. 

If Israel were using starvation as a weapon, they would not have been facilitating the entry and distribution of humanitarian aid into Gaza. If Israel wanted to starve the Gazans, they would simply cut off their food supply and let them die. And if Israel were hellbent on destroying Gaza, there are more effective ways that do not endanger Israeli lives than fighting a defensive war. The claim that Israel wants to commit genocide against the Palestinians is simply fallacious (see here, here, and here), especially since you do not send humanitarian aid to or feed a population you are trying to wipe off the planet. Israeli and UN data show that using starvation as a weapon is far from what is happening. Plus, I have pointed out how Israel has taken more precautions than any other army in history to minimize civilian suffering, thereby further diminishing the "Israel is out to get them" argument.

If Israel is helping out, then why are Gazan civilians still starving? Last Friday (July 25), there were 950 trucks piled with 2,500 tons of food sitting idle in Gaza. The U.S.- and Israel-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), which began operating in May 2025 to help distribute humanitarian aid to Gazans, offered to distribute the food sitting in the warehouses. However, the United Nations refused the GHF's help. This incident is but one example of what the situation faces with respect to food distribution.

It does not surprise me that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinians in the Near East (UNRWA) does not want to help GHF with the task alleviating starvation in the Gazan war zone. As I brought up last year, UNRWA has sowed the seeds of victimhood and anti-Semitism that have allowed for Hamas to proliferate. Unlike other refugee organizations, UNRWA is not mandated to help resettle refugees. If anything, UNRWA has structural incentives that discourage it from resolving the crisis because expanding refugee rolls perpetuates UNRWA's large budget and continued donor funding. That same mechanism is in play with the food shortage. 

UNRWA's institutional survival is contingent upon a large, dependent population. Crisis perpetuation attracts more humanitarian aid, not to mention that UNRWA is deeply entangled with the local power structures in Gaza, i.e., Hamas. Essentially, UNRWA's financial structure and institutional incentives do not reward resolving starvation, but rather reinforce a cycle of dependency and suffering. This refusal to work with outside humanitarian distributors underscores how UNRWA's operational control, as well as its incentives to maintain a dependent population, can obstruct effective relief delivery, even amid starvation.

It is not only UNRWA that reinforces suffering in Gaza. While the people of Gaza bear responsibility for electing Hamas and enabling Hamas' extremist ideology to flourish within Gazan society, they also live under an authoritarian terrorist organization that suppresses dissent and leaves few viable political options available, all of which fuel a cycle of violence and hate. It is especially sad for the children living in Gaza because they did not vote Hamas into power and cannot leave Gaza even if they wanted to leave. It is Hamas' violence and extremist ideology that help perpetuate the conflict in the Middle East. 

That extremism includes such tactics as stealing humanitarian aid meant for civilians and profiting off of those commandeered goods, which the Left-leaning Washington Post got around to admitting to last week. As I have brought up before and as the Henry Jackson Society illustrates in its April 2025 report on the topic, stealing humanitarian aid is part of Hamas' greater modus operandi of using Gazan citizens as human shields. 

In addition to stealing humanitarian aid, Hamas commits such acts as using humanitarian zones for military purposes, launching rockets from civilian sites, has a tunnel network built under civilian infrastructure, and use civilian structures as combat and weapons storage. By doing so, they garner international support, which is seen by the response of many in the West. 

[7/31/2025 Addendum: After writing this post, this UN database that has been monitoring UN aid since May 19, 2025 was brought to my attention. It turns out that 85 percent of the collected aid, in terms of tonnage, was intercepted, either by crowds or armed individuals. This is not coming from the Israeli government, but on the United Nation's website for all the world to see. Some journalistic scrutiny instead of posting Hamas lies would be helpful.]

Delivering humanitarian aid in a war zone is difficult in the best of circumstances. Since it is compounded by UNRWA's incompetence and Hamas' extremism, it makes the suffering of Gazan civilians all the worse. As long as the world believes Israel is responsible, Hamas will continue to benefit from the moral cover, international funding, and political oxygen it needs to maintain power and bring suffering to the Palestinians that human rights activists claim to care about so much. If the world actually cares about Palestinian suffering, it has to confront Hamas' culpability with such substantial action as targeted sanctions on Hamas leadership or an independent humanitarian oversight mission. Until then, Gazan citizens will continue to suffer: not because Israel is starving them, but because Hamas is using their starvation as a weapon of war. 

Dodd-Frank a Dud at 15: How Dodd-Frank Stifles the Financial Market

This week marks the 15th anniversary of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, or Dodd-Frank for short. Following the 2007-2008 financial crisis, Congress mistakenly believed that the Great Recession was caused by lax government regulation in the financial sector. In response, Congress passed the 2,300-page behemoth with 400 new rules and mandates for federal regulators known as Dodd-Frank. It remains the largest and one of the most complex pieces of legislation in U.S. history. As the title of today's piece indicates, Dodd-Frank has been a dud in financial regulation.

Dodd-Frank failed its central mission. One of the main purposes of Dodd-Frank was to prevent another systemic banking crisis. However, the United States experienced another crisis in March 2023 that involved bank runs and emergency bailouts. As I detailed in my response to the March 2023 crisis, there were plenty of regulations in place to possibly prevent it. Rather, it was the inability of federal regulators to do their job of detecting the buildup of interest rate risk at several banks. 

Increased moral hazard. The 2023 banking crisis is not surprising since Dodd-Frank's regulatory model encouraged banks to rely more on insured deposits instead of private market funding sources such as subordinated debt. With reduced market discipline, it disincentivized close monitoring of banks. The 2023 banking crisis is higher moral hazard, which in turn increases the likelihood of another banking crisis due to Dodd-Frank regulations.

Impact on smaller banks. Much as is the case with other regulations, Dodd-Frank has disproportionately affected smaller banks. There were 157 major final rules and programs from Dodd-Frank that affected smaller banks. This creates a significant compliance challenge since smaller banks often have limited staff and expertise to handle the additional compliance. As a 2020 study from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) shows, these regulations contributed to a higher exit rate of smaller community banks (see below); a larger minimum size that discourages new community bank formation; and reduce their residential mortgage holdings, which is a major source of revenue for smaller banks. 

Debit card fees. The Durbin Amendment of Dodd-Frank capped interchange fees on debit card transactions. As the Americans for Tax Reform argues, this price control cuts off revenue for fraud protection; hurt consumers with rising account fees and fewer rewards programs; and did not deliver on the promises to lower prices. I made a similar argument when criticizing Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez's argument for interest rate caps. After reviewing the academic literature, it turns out that the Durbin Amendment led to higher ban fees, increased reliance on costly credit cards, and caused one million Americans to become unbanked. 

Increased lending costs harm consumers. Another amendment of Dodd-Frank is the Collins Amendment. The Collins Amendment imposed strict capital and leverage requirements, especially when combined with Basel III standards. As the Institute for Financial Markets points out, these strict capital requirements increase lending costs. Why? Banks need to raise more capital to meet these capital requirements. As a result, the most likely outcome of high capital requirements such as those in Dodd-Frank is that consumers pay higher interest rates or fees (FDIC). These capital requirements also make more difficult for borrowers to qualify for loans or afford them, thereby limiting financial tools to the everyday American.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) harms consumers. To protect U.S. consumers from risky financial decisions, Dodd-Frank included a provision to create the CFPB. The CFPB is supposed to be responsible for regulatory oversight over consumer financial products. However, as I brought up this past February, CFPB has been a disaster that needs to be eliminated. Forget that the CFPB duplicates the roles of existing state and federal regulators. CFPB policies, especially fee caps and credit reporting restrictions, distort market incentives, restrict access to mainstream financial services, and push vulnerable individuals toward riskier alternative financial options. Furthermore, CFPB lacks accountability, operates without adequate oversight, and implements ideologically driven regulations that do nothing to protect the everyday consumer. 

Postscript. Given the sheer size of Dodd-Frank, there is plenty more I could cover, including, but not limited to, the Volcker Rule, Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA), and the the Federal Insurance Office within the U.S. Treasury. What I will say is the following. While Dodd-Frank was meant to avoid another financial crisis and maintain stability in the financial markets, it has been riddled with failure and unintended consequences. 

The regulatory framework not only was inadequate to prevent the 2023 banking crisis, but it increased moral hazard, harmed smaller banks, and increased consumer costs for financial services. Dodd-Frank has been more of a hindrance to the financial markets than a help. With its complexity, inefficiency, and lack of accountability, the 15th anniversary of Dodd-Frank should be spent repealing this dud, not celebrating it.

Morocco's Jobless Trap: When High Taxes, Labor Laws, and Corruption Stifle Economic Opportunity

Morocco is a country with such vibrant cities as Fez and Tangier, a diverse geography, a rich culture, a wealth of historic sites, and has been featured in such films as Casablanca and Game of Thrones. Guess what else Morocco has? High unemployment. According to the Moroccan government's Haut Commissariat du Plan, Moroccan unemployment is at 13.3 percent, which is slightly below the 30-year high (see below).

Youth unemployment is even worse, reaching a 25-year high (see below). Sadly, the problem is nothing new. NPR complained about high Moroccan youth unemployment in 2012. So what is causing this increase in unemployment? Sure, there was the COVID pandemic, but unemployment in Morocco is higher now than it was during the pandemic. 

As the International Monetary Fund (IMF) illustrates in its Article IV Consultation report, Morocco has withstood five droughts in six years that have led to production shortfalls of 40 percent. This seems like it explains the problem: lower agricultural output. However, Morocco's agriculture sector contributes about 15 percent to Morocco's GDP. That is a higher percentage, especially considering that high-income countries only have 2 percent of their GDP in agriculture. 

I bring this up because as economies develop and mature, they become less dependent on their agricultural sector. Similar to this recent article from the Institute for Research in Economic and Fiscal Issues (IREF), I argue that Morocco's dependency on agriculture is a larger symptom of government largesse getting in the way of true economic development. 

Taxation. Morocco's corporate tax can reach as high as 35 percent. You can read my analyses on corporate tax here, here, and here as to why that rate is too high. The standard value-added tax (VAT) in Morocco is 20 percent, which is higher than the global VAT average of 15 percent. A high VAT is significant because it reduces disposable income and discourages spending. On top of that, the Moroccan tax system has a narrow tax base and is riddled with tax exemptions that make evasion and avoidance common (Moutii, 2025). 

Government Spending. The good news is that Morocco is working on fiscal consolidation (IMF, p. 10). The bad news is that Morocco's debt-to-GDP ratio is 70.9 percent, which is about 30 percentage points higher than the recommended limit that should not be exceeded on the long-term for developing countries. Whether the Moroccan government can maintain fiscal discipline will determine how much this becomes a factor and avoids heading towards a fiscal cliff similar to that of the United States.

Labor Law Rigidity. The Legatum Institute details in its case study on Morocco that the Moroccan labor market is characterized by a lack of inclusion of women and youth, slow job growth, and low quality of jobs (also read this 2025 World Bank report on boosting the business environment in Morocco). This lack of labor market flexibility is brought on by a quickly growing minimum wage and high overtime costs, regulations that cause redundancies in businesses, rigidity on temporary contracts, and stringent barriers on terminating the employment of workers, all of which contribute to the high cost of labor. Additionally, a skills mismatch and lack of workforce development exacerbate the labor law rigidity (ibid., p. 50).

Corruption. According to Transparency International (TI), Morocco's corruption is worse than the global average. Even worse, its TI Corruption Perceptions Index score has declined since 2018. As I pointed out last year, corruption erodes economic growth. This is due to the fact that corruption impacts business confidence and hinders investment, as is illustrated by over 16,000 enterprises collapsing in Morocco last year. 

Postscript. It is true that there were global challenges such as pandemic and drought. It is also true that Morocco's high unemployment rate is more structural in nature. Punitive corporate taxes, a high VAT rate, and rigid labor laws make it difficult to modernize and diversify the economy. A richness in culture, geography, or global visibility is not going to save Morocco. It is a policy paralysis that will keep employment rates stubbornly high until the Moroccan government removes the barriers to economic prosperity.

No #MeToo for Israeli Women: The International Community Turned a Blind Eye to Hamas' Sexual Violence on October 7

 October 7, 2023, was a horrific day for Israel. A barrage of militant Hamas terrorists crossed into Israeli territory to carry out the worst pogrom against Jews since the Holocaust. Not only was there murder, kidnapping, and torture, but Hamas terrorists also used sexual violence against Israeli women. If this attack had happened in any other country, I imagine that advocates against sexual violence would not have equivocated and would have spoken up right away against such atrocities. However, since the October 7 attack took place in Israel, the "international community" took a different approach. 

In its press release on October 13, 2023, UN Women did not acknowledge the sexual assault of Israeli women and mostly talked about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, which is peculiar since Israeli Defense Forces did not have a physical presence between 2005 and October 23, 2023 when the IDF launched its full-scale incursion in Gaza. It took UN Women nearly two months to issue sort of any condemnation. When it did, UN Women could not help but partake in false equivalence. To its credit, the United Nations did eventually get around to admitting in 2024 that there are reasonable grounds that sexual violence took place in multiple places by Hamas on October 7. 

Neither Amnesty International nor Human Rights Watch (HRW) were much better in terms of being able to unequivocally condemn Hamas. HRW could not sufficiently condemn Hamas for its barbarism shortly after the attack, and did not even address Hamas' sexual violence. It took HRW until June 2024, or nine months later, to come out with a report acknowledging the sexual violence during the October 7 attacks. In contrast, HRW has swiftly condemned the sexual violence in Congo, in the DRC, and Sudan . 

On October 13, 2023, Amnesty International could not clearly criticize what Hamas did without condemning Israel in a manner that was tantamount to victim-blaming. Amnesty International unequivocally and quickly reported on the rapes committed by Tigray fighters in Ethiopia and the gang rapes of Rohingya women in Myanmar without equivocating. In contrast, Amnesty's December 2023 report on what happened on October 7 only confirmed one rape, which as we will see shortly, is an understatement of what happened.

This brings us to the Dinah Project, which is an Israeli group founded to advocate for the victims of conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV) during the October 7 attacks. Last week, the Dinah Project released a report entitled A Quest for Justice: October 7 and Beyond. Not only does this report extensively document over 15 cases of CRSV committed by Hamas and provides a legal framework to hold Hamas accountable. It makes the argument that the acts of CRSV were not individual acts. Instead, the sexual violence was a deliberate, ideologically motivated, and systematic tactic central to Hamas' genocidal goals, something which I have brought up before. 

This blatant one-sidedness is not new. In 1975, the United Nations passed a resolution falsely stating that Zionism is racism. Although the resolution was overturned in 1991, that animus remains to this day. It does not matter that there are actual human rights abuses taking place in the world. Israel is disproportionately vilified with such false accusations as apartheid, occupation, and settler colonialism. A few months ago, I had to refute Amnesty International's claim that Israel was committing genocide (see here, here, and here). 

So why the tempered or delayed responses from human rights organizations? Why are there so many on the Left, the Far Left in particular, who ignore the mounting evidence of sexual violence against Israelis and are incapable of condemning the terrorist group Hamas? Why is Israel subject to such frequent, intense, and disproportionate condemnation while so many of these critics ignore real human rights abuses and oppression? Shortly after the October 7 attacks, I asked myself why the "progressive" Left would be on Hamas' side because it was perplexing to me (see here and here). After examination, I was able to get past why the "progressive" Left would not side with a minority group that has been persecuted for centuries. 

With identity politics leading the way, the "progressive" Left can only see in terms of the oppressor and the oppressed in very black and white terms. For them, Israel is the oppressor. Acknowledging Hamas' usage as a weapon of war would have refuted the oppressor/oppressed dichotomy favored by many international actors. Moreover, the state of Israel is a repudiation of victimhood. Israel shows that a minority as oppressed as the Jews can overcome discrimination, stigma, and genocide to the point of creating a flourishing state. Leftist ideology loses credibility if minorities overcome adversity because it means we humans are not merely victims of circumstances. 

In contrast, the Palestinian cause is the personification of victimhood, which is why the Far Left clings to it so dearly to the point where Hamas can do no wrong and Israeli victims' suffering does not release them of being supposed "oppressors." Pro-Palestinian individuals cannot view Hamas as anything but virtuous. To do otherwise would be admitting that their worldview is not only wrong, but morally depraved. Conversely, if the Far Left has excused the likes of Stalin and Mao Zedong killing millions, why would they have moral qualms with the sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas? 

Anti-capitalist sentiment could explain why the Far Left would defend Hamas rapists and not care about Israeli victims. Earlier this month, the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) released a report entitled Forever Occupation, Genocide, and Profit. This UNHRC report was incapable of acknowledging that Hamas started the current war, that they systematically carried out murder and sexual violence, or that there are still hostages. What did the report conclude? "The enduring ideological, political, and economic engine of racial capitalism has transformed the Israeli displacement-replacement economy occupation into an economy of genocide." Much like I argued in 2023, Jews and the state of Israel personify capitalism and all the evils that anti-capitalists see in capitalism.

Whether Israel is viewed as oppressor, capitalist, or rejector of victimhood that the Far Left loves all too much, this is how "human rights advocates" can reach such a level of moral distortion. What Israel represents to these people is so reprehensible that they can contort facts and their perception of current events to believe that rape is resistance. The #MeToo movement died shortly after the October 7, 2023, because of these double standards. Major human rights organizations have failed in their respective missions. It is this overall indifference towards the suffering of Israeli women that caused the Dinah Project to come into being. 

We live in troubled times with anti-Semitism I previously thought was relegated to history books. Yet we are seeing and documenting horrid anti-Semitism in real time. We are seeing that sexual violence does not matter if the victim is Israeli or Jewish. We see that it has lamentably become acceptable to attack and murder Jews across the world in order to "globalize the intifada." As a survey from the Anti-Defamation League shows, it is how the United States has stooped low enough where 24 percent of Americans found that violence against Jews is "understandable." 

Given the entrenched hatred for Israel and for Jews in multiple international organizations, I remain skeptical as to whether the victims of the October 7 attacks will receive the justice they deserve. Until the world can view Hamas as the Islamist, regressive, homophobic anti-Semites that they are, and until people can realize that it is the Palestinians who embody everything the anti-Zionists accuse Israel of, most people will continue to cling to the moral inversion in which it is "understandable" to attack Jews and where #MeToo does not apply to Jews or Israelis. Even so, I hope that the Dinah Project is a first step to pursue justice for those who suffered at the hands of Hamas terrorists and could also be used as a framework to legally punish anyone who commits sexual violence in conflict. There is no acceptable instance in which rape is resistance. As we move forward, let us not forget who stood up for victims of sexual violence and who stood on the side of genocidal rapists.

Making Tomatoes Expensive Again: How Trump's Tomato Tariffs Will Squeeze Your Wallet

From salsa and salads to ketchup and tomato sauce, tomatoes are one of the most consumed produce items in the United States. While tomatoes serve multiple culinary purposes, the U.S. tomato market is being threatened. In April, the Trump administration withdrew from a suspension agreement on fresh tomatoes from Mexico. 

With the termination of this agreement, the U.S. Department of Commerce is implementing an antidumping duty of 20.91 percent on tomato imports from Mexico that is to take effect today: July 14, 2025. DOC claims that the agreement failed to protect U.S. tomato farmers from the "unfairly priced Mexican imports." An anti-dumping duty is a type of tariff that only comes into play when there is evidence of "dumping." Dumping is when foreign companies sell goods at prices lower than what they sell for in their home market or below the cost of production. 

The U.S. government, in short, is unhappy that Mexico can and does sell tomatoes at a much lower price than U.S. farmers. As I have explained with tax policy and who pays their "fair share," it is amazing how much fairness is in the eye of the beholder. We will get into the fairness aspect in a moment. What is worth mentioning is that Mexico accounts for 90 percent of U.S. tomato imports and 61 percent of overall tomato consumption. Fruit imports account for 60 percent of the fruits consumed in the U.S., which is twice the share in comparison to what it was in the early 1980s.

What is even more undeniable is that these tariffs will increase the costs of tomatoes. Based on mainstream microeconomic theory, tariffs decrease the quantity of imports, thereby increasing prices. It is not mere economic theory. Trump's tariffs during his first term cost the average U.S. household $831 per year. Looking at the tomato market, it is no mystery why tomato prices will increase.

Mexico has a cost advantage due to lower labor costs, a longer growing season, and better climatic conditions for growing tomatoes. What the DOC does not want to recognize is that Mexico simply has a natural market relationship in which Mexican tomato farmers are better positioned to supply tomatoes than U.S. tomato farmers, especially in the winter. U.S. tomato farmers in Florida have had to plow their tomatoes because increased picking and packing costs render them unprofitable to pick. With Trump's onerous deportations on top of it, undocumented workers who would have otherwise picked the tomatoes are too scared to work, thereby increasing tomato costs further. 

The think-tank American Action Forum (AAF) estimates that these tariffs will increase the cost of tomatoes by 8 cents a pound, or about a 7 percent increase. That estimate assumes that the only cost will be U.S. consumers paying for the cost increase because a spoiler for Trump: the vast majority of the cost of his tariffs is passed on to everyday Americans. 

Due to consumer expectations and U.S. businesses wanting to avoid profit margin decay, the AAF's estimate in cost increase could increase to 15 cents, or an 11 percent increase in cost. Since Mexico accounts for 90 percent of U.S. tomato imports and 61 percent of overall tomato consumption, the United States will need to try to compensate for the shortfall in meeting demand. 

In order to do so, the United States would need anywhere between 42,000 to 250,000 additional acres dedicated to tomato production. This is upwards of six times the size of Washington, DC. However, given that the United States does not have that advantage, odds are that there will be fewer tomatoes to eat. Not only that, this will mean less economic output. A study from Texas A&M (Ribera et al., 2025) shows that Mexican tomato imports to the United States create over $8 billion in economic impact, an impact that supports approximately 47,000 jobs in the United States (see below).

Whether it is with steel, automobiles, or movies, Trump still fails to realize that tariffs are a classic instance of "cut off your nose to spite your face." Interest groups demand tariffs and they often win because the concentrated benefits are more visible than the dispersed costs on millions of consumers. 

Trump was quick to blame Biden during the presidential campaign about causing food inflation. Let there be no mistake: Biden's fiscal policy contributed to food inflation. In its supposed quest to pursue market "fairness," Trump is going to protect a few well-connected farmers. As a result, Trump will raise tomato prices for the everyday consumer while slashing economic output and destroying jobs. American consumers and Mexican farmers should not be punished simply because Mexican farmers are better at producing affordable tomatoes. Affordable tomatoes are now the latest casualty in Trump's trade war and tariff turmoil. 

Privatize the TSA: Its "Shoes Off" Policy Shows Need to Unite the TSA's Stranglehold on Airport Security

Some good news for Americans traveling by air: the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) announced this Tuesday that the TSA no longer requires travelers to take off their shoes as part of TSA's security checkpoint process. While it is a relief there is one less protocol to follow at U.S. airports, this instance gets at the inanity of TSA's security protocols. 

TSA was created in 2001 in response to the 9/11 attacks. The Aviation and Transportation and Security Act was passed in November 2001 nationalizing passenger screening in the name of national security. Prior to 9/11, airline passenger screening was the responsibility of the airlines. Since private companies had years of experience whereas the U.S. government had no experience in airline passenger screening prior to 9/11, it remains unclear why the TSA thought it would have a better chance of thwarting terrorists. 

Consider TSA's "shoes off" policy as Exhibit A of the TSA's dysfunction. Shortly after 9/11, Richard Reid, also known as the Shoe Bomber, traveled from Paris to Miami. He unsuccessfully tried to ignite 50 grams of pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PNET) that was concealed in his shoes. Reid is serving life in prison, but his attempt inspired the TSA to take on the "shoes off" travel policy. If this policy were so vital to national security, you would think that the TSA would have implemented it right away, right? Not so much. 

As late as August 2006, the TSA was still advising travelers that they did not need to remove shoes before entering a metal detector. It would not have taken five years to implement the policy if it were that urgent, much like it would not have taken two decades to have implemented the REAL ID Act if it a national ID were meant to enhance national security. Second, the TSA has never in its existence caught anyone with a hidden bomb in their shoe, thereby questioning the logic of such a policy. If that were not enough, there are very few instances in which other countries have this airport policy. By and large, the European Union, Australia, Canada, Israel, India, United Kingdom, and Mexico do not have this protocol in place. 

If it were simply a matter of one stupid policy, I would be merely calling for reform on a specific TSA policy. However, "shoes off" is an example of overall TSA incompetency chasing a problem that by and large does not exist. Let us start with that second part first. Last year, the Cato Institute conducted a risk analysis of foreign-born terrorism on U.S. soil looking at terrorist attacks from 1975 to 2023, including 9/11. The probability of a person being killed in terrorist attack on U.S. soil committed by a foreign-born individual is about 1 in 4.5 million. To put that in context, a U.S. citizen is almost 4 times more likely to get struck by lightning than in a terrorist attack.  

I seriously question how safe the TSA keeps passengers. In 2013, I called for the elimination of the TSA because its screening capabilities were so shoddy. In 2015, ABC News was able to conduct an investigation of how the DHS carried out undercover tests to test TSA's competence. It turns out that 95 percent of mock explosives or banned weapons smuggled by DHS during these simulations went unnoticed by the TSA. 

A 2019 report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on these TSA simulations shows that the TSA has a long way to go. Repeat incidents plus a lack of reporting showing considerable improvement indicate the TSA remains inept at its screening process. Data on TSA screening failure rates has been kept classified since 2017, so we cannot get a current figure on TSA's incompetence. This should not be a surprise: the "solution" to dealing with poor screening practices is to curtail transparency and sweep the problem under the rug. 

To be fair, we need to ask whether the cost is justifiable. It is a fair question given that the U.S. government spent $9.1 billion on TSA in fiscal year 2024. In 2023, I discussed the value of a statistical life, which is a common practice in cost-benefit analysis to determine the amount one is willing to pay to reduce the probability of a death. Governments have a higher VSL than actuarial practices. Even if you go with the higher amounts, it could not exceed much beyond $12 million. 

The most generous independent estimate is $15 million, which is already beyond standard CBA. However, that $15 million figure assumes 100 percent effectiveness rate. Assuming that the 95 percent failure rate still holds, the estimate is closer to $667 million per life saved. Once adjusted for inflation, that estimate puts the cost at $912 million per life saved. This is public policy speak to say that the TSA is so inefficient that the exceptionally high costs do not justify any purported benefits by any reasonable CBA. 

On top of that, there are other useless TSA practices. As security professional Bruce Schneier points out, liquid bans are arbitrary and unproven, full-body scanners are invasive and ineffective; and the SPOT behavioral screening program lacks evidence of effectiveness. And do not get me started on the TSA not following the science by forcing airplane passengers to wear face masks during the COVID pandemic.

The TSA is talented at feeling up and patting down airline passengers, confiscating items that do not need to be confiscated, and creating a bunch of national security theater, but is efficient at little else. It's American government at its finest because a government monopoly is incapable of properly trading off costs and benefits. The TSA has been far more invasive and costly than terrorism itself. The TSA belongs in a list of U.S. federal government agencies that should be eliminated, including the Department of Education, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).   If we care about airport security, fiscal discipline, and national security, the TSA should be abolished and privatized so airplane passengers can go through metal detectors without dealing with the excessive security theater.