“The White House said the new tariffs take effect Feb. 24. Trump’s proclamation exempts a long list of products from the new levies, including beef, tomatoes, oranges, pharmaceuticals, passenger vehicles and certain critical minerals. It also excludes products governed by a trade deal with Canada and Mexico.
Trump vowed Feb. 20 to forge ahead and enact tariffs through other methods after the high court ruled the president doesn’t have the congressional authority to impose tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
…
Trump cited another section of the 1974 Trade Act for the 10% tariffs. The new tariffs apply to countries that send the United States more than they import. But that type of tariff lasts for only 150 days, unless Congress votes to extend them.
…
U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said investigations over unfair trade practices could lead to other tariffs. Trump’s proclamation directs Greer to “investigate certain unreasonable and discriminatory acts, policies, and practices that burden or restrict U.S. commerce.”
“We have a lot of tools out there,” Greer said. “You can look forward in the coming days and weeks to see all of that come out.””
Canadian prime minister says the US is pushing out intellectual capital by its hostility toward immigrants and against diversity, and Canada can take those brains instead to make Canada stronger rather than the US.
Iran is an evil regime and has been evil and aggressive toward the US and its friends for a long time. But, regime change without a land invasion will require a sustained effort that includes cooperating with groups on the ground, and it’s not clear the Trump administration has the strategy to succeed in such an effort.
“In just the past few weeks, Trump has floated—and senior members of his administration have defended—four policy proposals that would have been loudly denounced as socialist overreach had they come from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. And for good reason. Progressives champion similar big-government policies.
Start with the proposal to ban institutional investors from buying single-family homes. This is not conservative policy; it’s the federal government deciding who should be allowed to buy property based on identity rather than on behavior. It substitutes political discretion for voluntary market exchange and treats ownership itself as suspect.
The proposal rests on the false premise that allowing corporate investors to own and subsequently rent out homes is a major driver of high home prices. The practice is supposedly diverting capital away from construction, limiting the number of homes changing hands and crowding out owner-occupiers.
The data say something much different. Depending on the source, institutional investors own only about 1–2 percent of U.S. single-family homes. Estimates from the American Enterprise Institute and HousingWire show that even at the upper bound, this share is far too small to plausibly explain the 50 percent nationwide increase in home prices since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.
…
the idea of ordering Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase $200 billion in mortgage-backed securities, a kind of housing-specific version of the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing, in an effort to lower mortgage rates. Conservatives spent the last election cycle correctly explaining that subsidizing demand in a supply-constrained housing market only pushes prices higher.
…
the proposed 10 percent cap on credit card interest rates. Price controls on unsecured credit don’t make borrowing cheaper; they make it disappear for anyone deemed risky. When banks cannot price risk to certain borrowers, they stop lending to them. But borrowers don’t stop needing credit; they just get pushed into far worse alternatives.”
“Many conservatives are embracing big government, from police-state immigration tactics to socialist economic policies.”
There were some true believers, but for the most part, don’t tread on me Republicans were just anti-Obama reactionaries who globbed on to whatever justification they could to complain about Obama.
“Carr threatens network daytime and late-night shows with reprisal if they don’t offer candidates equal time. But Fox News’ late-night show Gutfeld!, which draws more viewers than any of the networks, can have on any guests it wants, since the content of cable TV generally falls outside the FCC’s purview. The same goes for social media platforms like TikTok, where 1 in 5 Americans regularly gets their news. The idea that ABC, NBC, and CBS control the flow of information is quaint.
…
“Streaming represented 44.8% of TV viewership in May 2025,” Nielsen found in June 2025, “while broadcast (20.1%) and cable (24.1%) combined to represent 44.2% of TV.” In other words, 80 percent of all that we watch on TV is not even subject to the same level of FCC regulation, including the equal-time rule.
…
Carr “sees correcting anti-Trump bias as an important part of his job,” Jacob Sullum wrote in the February/March issue of Reason, in a piece about the FCC’s history of policing speech. “In fact, Carr seems eager to embrace what he once derided as ‘a roving mandate to police speech in the name of the “public interest.”‘”
The equal-time rule is an antiquated regulation that becomes more obsolete with each passing year. It’s no longer the case that broadcast networks are Americans’ only—or even main—source of information. It shouldn’t be up to the FCC to decide if talk shows are the right amount of partisan. If viewers don’t want to watch, it’s easier than ever to just watch something else.”