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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recognizing Palestine Will Not Incentivize Good Behavior

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

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

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

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

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

What Exactly Is Being Recognized?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Symbolic Recognition Undermines Real Diplomacy

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

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

Symbolic Recognition Shows Western Moral Confusion

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

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

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

Rosh Hashanah Is a Reminder That Blame Is Easy and It Takes Courage to Change

As the Jewish New Year (Rosh Hashanah) fast approaches, Jews are called to reflect and renew. The blowing of the ram's horn, also known as the shofar, is a sound that wakes us both to our potential and make us aware of our failures so we can be the best version of ourselves. To do that sort of deep work, we need both courage and honesty. In a world where preserving image often takes precedence over truth, it is often honesty that ends up being the first casualty in the modern world. 

Why? It is one of the most ancient human forces: the ego. The ego exists to protect us, whether it is from shame, rejection, criticism, guilt, vulnerability, or even the painful fact that to err is to be human. The ego convinces us that if we admit fault, we risk getting hurt; we can lose love, respect, fame, prestige, or face. Instead of confronting, the ego directs us to deflect and avoid. Blame is not new. It is what got Adam and Eve kicked out of the Garden of Eden. What has happened is that over time, this tendency has intensified to new levels and social media has intensified this tendency to new all-time highs. We live in a broader culture where blame-shifting is often rewarded and normalized, whether it is blaming our upbringing, the boss, genetics, trauma, the government, systemic racism, social media, the economy, or societal expectations.

My former rabbi, Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld, wrote a book called Renewal where he called this mindset towards giving excuses the "Avimelech Syndrome." The Avimelech Syndrome is inspired by the biblical story in Genesis 21. Avimelech, the King of Gerar, behaves in a way that is morally questionable and arguably duplicitous. While he claims ignorance, he ultimately deflects blame rather than owning the impact of his actions, which Rabbi Herzfeld interprets as a moral failing. Instead of taking responsibility, he ends up saying, "It wasn't my fault. There were mitigating circumstances."  

Why does this script sound familiar? Because most of us have succumbed to this mindset at some point or another, myself included. I am not here to say that circumstances do not matter because they play a role, and sometimes a major one. However, we cannot stop at blaming our circumstances. 

Teshuvah, which is the Jewish concept of repentance, begins with the terrifying words of "I was wrong." Rabbi Herzfeld finds the Avimelech Syndrome so problematic because when we say "it is not really my fault," it is not merely about evading guilt. It is a spiritual paralysis that stymies personal growth. We cannot begin to transform our thoughts and actions if we spend all of our energy defending our ego and our faults. In describing the Avimelech Syndrome, Rabbi Herzfeld provides three steps to overcome the Avimelech Syndrome:

1. Acknowledge our errors and mistakes. To make real change, we cannot make excuses for our behavior. Without recognizing where we have erred, we cannot move forward or improve. We have to take the time to ask what errors we have made, whether large or small. 

2. Make a clear commitment to doing better. In the Avimelech story, Abraham signs a treaty with Avimelech that Abraham can dig wells at Be'er Sheva. The treaty should have held at least for a few generations, but Avimelech's henchmen closed up the wells shortly after Abraham's passing (Genesis 26:15-18). This breach of trust shows us how not to act. Teshuvah is not simply about saying sorry, as I pointed out in 2014. It means making meaningful change in our lives. Herzfeld suggests picking one thing and committing to it. It can be practicing gratitude, an act of kindness, or a certain Jewish ritual. 

3. Trust the larger process. The beginning of this Torah portion about Avimelech begins with the phrase "G-d remembered Sarah" (Genesis 21:1). Remember that Sarah had previously laughed when G-d said He would give her a child (Genesis 18:12). After all, she laughed because she gave up hope on ever having a child. Can you imagine that G-d had abandoned you? In the end, Sarah did have a child. Rabbi Herzfeld reminds us that "The message is not that [G-d] will always give what we ask for. If we fully commit to [G-d], then we will gain enormous spiritual strength from that relationship and it will be a source of empowerment for us throughout our lives." Whether we call it G-d, the Universe, or transcendence, the idea is to trust the process. Our goal is effort, not outcome, as difficult as it can be to remember that. By remembering this key factor, we can avoid despair when things more slowly or not at all. 

As strong as this framework is, we cannot stop at commitment or with one act. We need to take it a step further: personal responsibility. To paraphrase self-help author Mark Manson, "Even if it is not your fault, it is your responsibility." None of this means that we are necessarily to blame. There are things that happen to us that are unfortunate and unfair. However, we have the agency in how we respond, repair and grow from that hurt. If we cannot address what transpired, led to the present moment, or what is holding us back, we cannot move forward.  

Teshuvah is a process that begins internally, but needs to extend outwardly to be effective. It asks us to assess the damage we caused with our errors and mistakes in order to make amends and do right. It asks us to change so we behave differently in the future and do better than we did last year. This takes time, effort, awareness, patience, humility, and grace. It is in this personal responsibility in which we become our best and truest selves. Teshuvah is not rooted in guilt, but rather power and self-agency.

It is ironic coming from a perfectionist, but this time of year is not to be a time of perfection. It is meant to be a time of courage. It is courage to tell the truth, even when it is inconvenient. It is courage to face the wrong you have done instead of ignoring it. It is the courage and discipline to change, to grow, and to improve. In a world that encourages denial and deflection of blame, teshuvah is an act of rebellion and courage of one of the highest orders. It is also an act of faith, to believe that we are not defined by our worst moments and that we have the ability to change. 

This year, we should ask ourselves, "Where have I hidden behind excuses?" What conversation have I been avoiding?" "What would it mean to truly take responsibility?" This year, we should not only hear the shofar, but respond to it. So how will you respond to the shofar this year? 

Red Ink and Green Cards: How Increasing Immigration Improves the Fiscal Health of the United States

After the dust settled in the 2024 U.S. presidential campaign, it was a given that immigration was going to be a major topic during Trump's second term. He beefed up border control and has implemented mass deportation. Additionally, Trump signed off on a 1 percent remittance tax that will most likely fuel the immigration he is trying to stop. He is trying to use a law and order justification, even though immigrants are about half as likely to commit crimes as native-born citizens. While he is tackling immigration for criminal justice and cultural reasons, there is one aspect of restricting immigration that Trump is neglecting: its fiscal impact. 

What happens to a nation's balance sheet when a country closes its doors to newly arrived immigrants who are workers, taxpayers, and/or future parents? Amid the campaign slogans and punditry, few commentators or pundits have asked what immigration will cost this country in a fiscal sense. As federal deficits mount and such entitlement programs as Social Security and Medicaid become insolvent, immigration is not merely a cultural issue, but a budgetary one. A new report from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) released earlier this month takes this concern seriously by presenting a post-pandemic snapshot with updated 2024 Current Population Survey data. With these data on newly arrived immigrants, there is a more updated projection of fiscal impact.

The AEI report finds that immigrants with a Bachelor's or graduate degree have a strong net fiscal impact. For low-income households, the net fiscal impact has a net direct cost in the short-term (see below). However, the AEI study identifies often overlooked, indirect positive fiscal effects as a result of low-income workers who increase the net benefit. This is hardly surprising since undocumented immigrants pay nearly $100 billion in taxes annually. 

One of the key indirect benefits is that the immigrants provide higher wages of native workers as a result of complementary immigrant workers. By increasing labor market efficiency, both low-skilled and high-skilled immigrants can boost native workers' wages, which in turn increases overall tax revenue.

Second, immigrants contribute to capital stock growth. With more workers, the existing stock of capital (e.g., factories, equipment, infrastructure) becomes relatively scarce. To rebalance the capital-to-labor ratio, firms are incentivized to invest in new capital. More capital translates into more capital-related tax revenue. Once these indirect positives are accounted for, it can offset the short-term fiscal costs on the state level in education (see Colas and Sachs, 2024). 

Looking at the long-term, AEI estimates that in a 75-year time horizon, increased immigration would reduce the fiscal gap by $750,000 per household. With the 2.2 million new households (7.9 million people/average household size of 3.6 people), the result would be a reduction of the long-term fiscal gap by $1.75 trillion. 

This finding about net positive fiscal impact lines up with a 2023 Cato Institute white paper saying that even immigrants without a high school diploma contribute a net positive fiscal impact. This AEI paper also lines up with a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report from July 2024 about the fiscal impact of immigration. The CBO found that over the next decade, increased immigration by 200,000 a year would add $1.2 trillion in revenue. The 2023 IMF research paper also demonstrates the macroeconomic benefits of immigration, including increased GDP, employment, total factor productivity (TFP), and labor productivity.

This evidence should be taken seriously when analyzing Trump's mass deportation. This AEI report shows that the post-pandemic surge in immigration strengthened federal revenue and expanded the labor supply. As I pointed out last month, forced mass deportations would not only be morally problematic, but fiscally reckless. In terms of increasing fiscal deficits, mass deportation will end up reducing the GDP and reducing workers' wages, both of which have serious fiscal consequences.

Immigrants are often depicted as a fiscal burden on the citizens of the United States. However, after crunching the numbers, the opposite turns out to be the reality. Far from draining this country, immigrants stabilize this country's fiscal health. With growing deficits and declining fertility levels in the United States, restricting immigration not only fails to solve the problem; it makes matters worse. If Trump wants to be serious about immigration policy, it should not start with a border wall, raids from ICE, or fantasies about how immigrants are disproportionately responsible for crime. It needs to start with economic reality. 

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.