Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Donald Trump

The Trump Campaign Won't Stop Lying About a Minnesota Man Acquitted of Shooting at Police

Jaleel Stallings became an attack ad for Republicans. What they don't mention is that he was acquitted, and a police officer pleaded guilty to assaulting him.

C.J. Ciaramella | 7.22.2024 2:01 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
jaleel stallings | Illustration: Lex Villena; Rorem, Defense Visual Information Distribution Service
(Illustration: Lex Villena; Rorem, Defense Visual Information Distribution Service)

It wasn't long after Joe Biden announced he wouldn't seek reelection that the Donald Trump campaign turned its attention to Vice President Kamala Harris, the presumptive new Democratic nominee.

The official account of the Trump "War Room" (the cool-sounding name for the campaign's opposition research nerds) immediately began posting its greatest hits on Harris on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. But one of those attacks was quite curious:

"Kamala Harris helped raise money for a far-left organization that bailed a rioter who shot at police out of jail," the Trump War Room wrote on X yesterday.

Kamala Harris helped raise money for a far-left organization that bailed a rioter who shot at police out of jail. https://t.co/DweB3pf3mO

— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) July 21, 2024

The Trump War Room appears to be referring to Jaleel Stallings, a Minnesota man who was indeed charged with rioting, attempted murder, and deadly force against police officers during the George Floyd protests of 2020.

It's not the first time the Trump campaign has tried to use Stallings' case as a political cudgel. Back in 2020, the Trump War Room posted multiple times about Stallings, calling him a "would-be cop killer who was in jail for firing at police during 'peaceful protests.'

"Now he's free thanks in part to Biden campaign officials who donated to pay bail fees," the account wrote. "Will Joe Biden apologize for helping put cops in danger?"

Jaleel Stallings is a would-be cop killer who was in jail for firing at police during "peaceful protests."

Now he's free thanks in part to Biden campaign officials who donated to pay bail fees.

Will Joe Biden apologize for helping put cops in danger? https://t.co/UzSNt06fuC pic.twitter.com/muwZVYOxBS

— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) August 31, 2020

What the Trump War Room neglected to mention yesterday is that a jury acquitted Stallings of all charges, and he later won a $1.5 million lawsuit settlement as a result of his violent arrest. In fact, one of the police officers pleaded guilty last year to assaulting him.

Stallings, an Army veteran who had a concealed carry permit, was in a parking lot at night in May of 2020, five days after the death of George Floyd, when Minneapolis SWAT team officers in an unmarked van began firing rubber bullets at him. 

The officers had been cruising the streets firing less-than-lethal rounds from their 40 mm projectile launchers at groups of people who were out past curfew. "The first fuckers we see, we're just hammering 'em with 40s," the team's sergeant ordered, according to body camera footage shown at Stallings' trial. Before they reached Stallings they had also taken potshots at a family trying to protect their gas station from looters and pepper sprayed a Vice News reporter who was supposed to be exempt from the curfew.

Stallings claimed he saw the unmarked white cargo van pull up with its lights off and the door slide open. He heard a pop and then felt the sharp pain of a rubber bullet hitting him in the chest. He said he assumed it was a drive-by and thought he'd been grazed by a bullet. Stallings returned fire at the van, shooting three rounds that did not hit anyone. When he realized he was shooting at police, he tossed his gun and surrendered. Body camera footage shown at Stallings' trial showed officers kicking and punching Stallings as he tried to surrender, including after he was handcuffed.

The Trump campaign and conservative media latched onto the case after Stallings' $75,000 bail was paid by the Minnesota Freedom Fund, a bail fund that Harris had tweeted support for.

"Meet the Rioting Criminals Kamala Harris Helped Bail out of Jail," a Federalist headline declared in an article that mentioned Stallings' case.

It was a weak attack that completely fell apart once the facts of the case were known.

The ostensible function of bail is to act as a surety that the defendant, who is presumed innocent, will appear at trial. In practice, it has turned into a monetary lever to keep arrestees in jail, regardless of their danger to the public. Bail funds are a workaround to this problem. (Several red states have introduced or passed laws to ban them in response.) In Stallings' case, the bail fund and the mechanism of cash bail worked exactly as they were supposed to: They kept him out of jail pending his trial, where he successfully claimed self-defense, and preserved his presumption of innocence, despite the best efforts of conservative media and the Trump campaign to publicly smear him.

The Trump War Room's repeated invocation of the case of a man who ultimately was proven to be an innocent victim of police brutality is a reminder that the Republican Party's obsequious and omnipresent "blue lives" rhetoric doesn't reflect a sincere concern for officers' safety. Rather, it's just a bit of sloppy demagoguery to keep a favored class of public employees beyond criticism and above the law.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: 'Project Rescue Children' Exposed as Latest in Series of Human-Trafficking Hoaxes

C.J. Ciaramella is a reporter at Reason.

Donald TrumpCriminal JusticeBailConcealed CarryGunsPolicePolice AbuseGeorge FloydMinneapolisElection 2024Politics
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (77)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

    Oh yeah? Well Democrats lie all the time. That makes it ok when Trump lies. And it makes you a leftist for talking about him instead of Democrats.

    1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

      Trump didn't lie. Ciaramella is lying, but Trump didn't lie. What he said was factual.

      Of course you don't give a shit about the truth because you're just an angry old drunk who wants to troll.

      1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

        Intentionally leaving out important details in order to misrepresent the truth is what most people call “lying by omission.” Though you call it “Monday.”

        1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

          Here's your "lie by omission" the Trump War Room said it. Not Donald Trump.

          Now Trump War Room is part of the campaign, but the tweets aren't approved or overseen by Trump.

          Just like when the Biden HQ account went off the rails, you and Lying Jeffy weren't pretending Biden said those things.

          1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   1 year ago

            That would I vole honesty and consistency. Things those two shitweasels lack.

          2. diver64   1 year ago

            Trump may not have said it directly but he, like Biden, should take full responsibility for what his campaign is putting out. I am a little hazy on the officiality of "Trump War Room" in regards to its connection to the campaign. It looks like a twitter account not officially recognized as part of the Trump campaign.
            "Official Trump War Room" may have as much credibility as "The Official Song Of Summer" although it's been around for some time.

            1. Efforidentalistionicker   1 year ago

              Commenting privileges now require a subscription to Reason Plus. As a past commenter you have been granted commenting privileges on a temporary basis. To ensure your continued ability to comment and enjoy numerous additional benefits, subscribe to Reason Plus now.

              1. Johnathan Galt   1 year ago

                Not if it's the same forum as today. It's horrible. No notification of replies, etc. And, note that I won't know if you reply.

                1. EdG   1 year ago

                  The comment system has a few bugs. If you post more than a single comment on the same article, none make it to the list in your profile.

                2. Brett Bellmore   1 year ago

                  But the lack of bullshit censorshipmoderation makes up for all of that.

            2. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

              "Trump may not have said it directly but he, like Biden, should take full responsibility for what his campaign is putting out."

              Absofuckinglutely, but that's not what that little drunken shitweasel Sarcasmic and his pal, Lying Jeffy were saying.
              They were saying Trump said it and then calling me a 'liar' when I said he didn't.

          3. charliehall   1 year ago

            If Trump can't run his own war room how can he run the country?

            The answer of course is that he won't run the country. He will take orders from Putin. And grift and grift and grift.

      2. Zeb   1 year ago

        At the very least it seems to be lazy and shoddy research.

        And "would-be cop killer" doesn't seem to be accurate, since he apparently stopped shooting and surrendered as soon as he realized they were police.

        1. bacchys   1 year ago

          MAGAts don't really care if what they bleat is true.

          1. Johnathan Galt   1 year ago

            Sure, Bahbahra...

            1. charliehall   1 year ago

              Yes, sure. And when I correct MAGAts they double and triple down on their falsehoods. They particularly love to lie about immigration.

      3. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

        Lol from the guy who thinks Trump didn't lie even once in the debate. Hey ML, did Trump lie in his convention speech? Maybe the illegals really are cannibals!

        1. Commenter_XY   1 year ago

          So chemjeff...Crooked Joe Biden has been forced out of the race because of his cognitive issues.

          Should he resign?

          Can you make a credible case for Crooked Joe Biden to remain POTUS for 6 more months, despite obvious cognitive issues?

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

            Give me one good reason why I should put the effort into giving you a serious and good faith answer.

            1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

              Well it would certainly be a first if you did.

            2. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   1 year ago

              We know you can’t. So GTFO.

          2. charliehall   1 year ago

            Biden today is in better cognitive shape than Ronald Reagan was in 1984. But yes, let Biden resign and make Kamala Harris the incumbent with all the campaign advantages. It will make it even more likely that she wins in November.

        2. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   1 year ago

          Lies? Of what lies do you speak? Trump didn’t lie.

      4. Dan S.   1 year ago

        What Trump said was not factual. Stallings was neither a "rioter" nor a "would-be cop killer". He was accused of being a would-be cop killer, but successfully demonstrated at trial that, in fact, he was not. That's why he was able to get that $1.5 million civil judgement.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

          Oh no, you don't get it. If ML thinks Trump is being attacked from what he perceives as "from the left", he will defend Trump to the hilt. He will try to convince you that lies are truth and Trump is like the Pope, completely infallible. So in this case he will try to weasel and lawyer and nitpick the definitions of words. "Well, what really is a 'riot' anyway..." This is because ML is paid by the Trump people to shill on his behalf.

          1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

            Read the article you two stupid fucks, and then come back down here and quote to me exactly what Donald J. Trump (OrangeHitler to you) said about Jaleel Stallings.

            Fucking retards. Can't even shill properly.

            1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   1 year ago

              They really manage to combine dishonesty and stupidity to dazzlingly idiotic results, while diminishing either quality.

      5. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   1 year ago

        Sarc hate republicans, and he especially hates Trump. That and his decades long alcohol abuse are about all there is to him.

      6. diver64   1 year ago

        No, what Trump said was stretching the truth way out of context. The man could be called a "would be cop killer" in the sense police in an unmarked van shot at him and he returned fire but the entire situation was very strange. The cops opened fire, he returned fire at the unmarked vehicle and when he realized they were cops stopped firing. Please read some stories on this one. I am firmly in the police camp in giving them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise but in this case they were flat in the wrong.

        1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

          For fucks sake, read the article. Trump didn't say it. A group account affiliated with his campaign did.
          That's like saying the Biden HQ account was written by Biden.

          1. diver64   1 year ago

            For fucks sake I read the article. If it's your campaign and the account is directly linked to or run by your campaign you should take responsibility for what is on there.

      7. Riva   1 year ago

        And what passes for criminal justice in Minnesota courts these days has nothing whatsoever to do with justice, or truth for that matter.

    2. Efforidentalistionicker   1 year ago

      Im gay

    3. LIBtranslator   1 year ago

      Yeah! MAAA-guh, MAAA-guh, MAAA-guh! Jail Obama!

  2. Spiritus Mundi   1 year ago

    Nothing in those tweets is a lie. They might be miss leading, but they are factually accurate. The guy was arrested for shooting at the cops and bailed out by left wing activists.

  3. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

    Just a reminder, folks:

    C.J. CIARAMELLA
    Criminal Justice Reporter

    Who do you plan to vote for this year? Joe Biden. The nationalists said the libertarian-conservative consensus is dead, and I take them at their word. Also, Stephen Miller is a white nationalist.

    https://reason.com/2020/10/12/how-will-reason-staffers-vote-in-2020/

    This doesn't work anymore CJ. Nobody believes your lies anymore. Your power is broken.

    1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

      The libertarian-conservative consensus is indeed dead. People who support economic liberty have been purged from Trump's GOP. It's not enough to get me to vote for anyone the Democrats have to offer, though I can understand why someone who feels compelled to choose between the duopoly would make that choice.

      1. Zeb   1 year ago

        I don't think such a consensus ever really existed. There have always been, and still are a few, republicans who are pretty libertarian, though. Can't think of any Democrats like that.

        1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

          It somewhat existed when Republicans gave lip service to economic liberty, which they have completely turned away from.

          The flip side of the libertarian coin is personal liberty. Democrats who stand in the way of the conservative crusade against personal liberty could be considered somewhat libertarian if that's what is really important to you. Which it apparently is for many Reason writers.

          1. Zeb   1 year ago

            But where are Democrats really better on personal liberty? Weed and abortion, but I can't think of a lot else.

            1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

              The more libertine things that conservatives react viscerally to. Basically when the idiots start screaming "leftist!" at the writers.

              1. Liberty_Belle   1 year ago

                But the idiots scream "leftist" at the writers for everything they say that isn't 'Trump is great'.

                1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                  Because they are Democrats instead of libertarian, which is why you're here.

                  1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   1 year ago

                    Is Belle Jeffy?

                    1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                      Or Shrike. Those two sockpuppet masters probably account for 90% of the barely used accounts here.

          2. Commenter_XY   1 year ago

            What is 'completely turned away from economic liberty', sarcasmic? You tell me.

            If you say the T word (tariff), can you respond to the point that a tariff can be laid for non-economic reasons, like national security, or even diplomatic reasons. It is not just economic.

            1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

              Economic liberty means consumers aren’t steered by government into buying what government wants them to buy. Economic liberty means companies that can’t compete fail, instead of being protected and propped up by tariffs and subsidies and such. Economic liberty doesn’t mean busting up big companies because their competitors have better political connections. Economic liberty means accepting competitive advantage, which includes government policies we might not like.

              Economic liberty means looking at the economy from the point of view of the consumer, not that of the producer.

              1. Heresolong   1 year ago

                "companies that can’t compete fail, instead of being protected and propped up by tariffs and subsidies"

                What if the companies can't compete because the competition is using slave labor and their government is heavily subsidizing them for the sole purpose of engaging in economic warfare? Is that also economic liberty?

              2. VinniUSMC (Banana Republic Day 5/30/24)   1 year ago

                Poor sarc, doesn't actually care to examine how Leftists are better about economic liberty. Because they're not. Democrats don't give a flying fuck about economic liberty. Everything you complain about, Leftists are worse.

                1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                  That's the baffling bit about Sarckles rhetoric. On everything he bitches about the Republicans for, the Democrats are far, far worse. And yet he never bitches about the Dems... at all.

                  1. BillEverman   1 year ago

                    It's the same reason that people will march and protest when cops murder someone but not when some random thug on the street does it: the cops claim to work for the people, and no one expects criminals to be sensitive to public opinion. In the same way, we already know that the Democrats suck at economic liberty, but the Republicans keep pretending that they are for economic freedom, when they clearly aren't. The Democrats will gladly acknowledge that they're for a more "managed" economy; the Republicans campaign as if they aren't, but govern as if they are...usually. The Republican populists are starting to come out and admit that they also want to pull all the levers now.

        2. LIBtranslator   1 year ago

          Note to foreign readers: "Can't think" is a common complaint among Trumpanzista republicans vandalizing competing parties.

  4. Rick James   1 year ago

    What the Trump War Room neglected to mention yesterday is that a jury acquitted Stallings of all charges,

    You know who else was acquitted of all charges?

    1. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

      O.J. Simpson?

  5. mad.casual   1 year ago

    The official account of the Trump “War Room” (the cool-sounding name for the campaign’s opposition research nerds)

    Given actual shots fired in both/all directions is it really just a cool-sounding name for a group of nerds?

    I know Jiffy Pop was one bad dude, but does that make the actual “room where war is conducted” in the WH just a “room for nerds with a cool name” when Joe Biden walks out of it?

  6. Roberta   1 year ago

    I'm guessing it's a bit of laziness or sloppiness. Trump's staffers looked at what they'd had in their files previously, and those files had failed to be kept up to date with new info, because usually once a blurb is entered, there's no new info about the enderlying events.

  7. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

    If the facts are as described then the Republicans should shut up about it. And the knee jerk cop sucking is not my favourite thing about the Trump campaign. But the reality is that thousands of violent left wing rioters have paid no price for their crimes. Inevitably an honest review would note the contrast with non violent J6 protesters who are sitting in jail as we speak for parading. But we won't get that discussion at Reason.

    1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   1 year ago

      Not in three and a half years. Fucking leftist hacks.

    2. jimc5499   1 year ago

      Wrong answer. The Liberal Organization implied that because he was Black and that he shot at a Police Officer he shouldn't be in jail. That was their agenda and Harris and her staffers supported it. The fact that he was later found not guilty had nothing to do with it. There's nothing wrong with the ad.

    3. bacchys   1 year ago

      There were over 17,000 arrests in 2020.

      What non-violent J6 insurrectionists have been sitting in jail?

  8. Dillinger   1 year ago

    the plastic straws at which you grasp are not approved by Karmela.

  9. diver64   1 year ago

    I've read a bunch about this. Seems to me that Jamaal was minding his own business defending himself when cops in an unmarked van started shooting at him for some reason. He, rightly, returned fire and when he realized they were cops stopped shooting. Such left wing sights as Ammoland put up stuff defending his actions.

    1. LIBtranslator   1 year ago

      The GOP fixation may be on immunity for republican politicians and any and all cops, no matter how premeditated or malicious the murders. From this it follows the guy needed beating and legal lynching irrespective of persuasion or pigmentation. Lysander Spooner spelled this out in his explanation of the workings of the Civil War income tax.

  10. car-keynes   1 year ago

    Curfew for citizens, plus police shooting projectiles at them.

    Authoritarian laws exclude people from fair treatment.

    It’s not unlike shooting anyone who passes a stop sign or red light or no entry sign. It does not recognize a right, and therefore it does not give a person a chance. It says that a person does no matter, and it says that endangering the public has become obligatory. Any bill of attainder, being the sort of law being described in the article and in my own example, does not take human rights into consideration because it violates the law by seizing the opportunity to design a plan for rights not to matter and then get that plan approved by elected officials.

    This public version of law-based security has zero security layers.
    Private security would generally have at least one layer of security, such as a fence or door.

    This sort of law may be like passing a law that says to shoot anyone who stops at a Stop sign at the intersection of Main Street and Second Street. The state has you thinking that the nature of wrongdoing comes from another person putting themselves in that sort of position by their own doing.

    Now, with the wanton shooting by police of the locals, it does not give any person a fair chance to respond without provocation nor without having been under clear threat. Rubber bullets are not understood to be insignificant, and an assault by one rubber bullet looks like an attack from a suspicious source.

    At that point, why should an aggressor get away with assault with an injurious device just because of their identity? And any police can be sued for wrongful action, even though it is not necessarily of the visceral need to put the mechanism of aggression immediately into a state of arrest.

  11. GraniteLiberty303   1 year ago

    The Trump campaign should just replay the debate exchange between Tulsi and Kamala in their attack ads, https://youtu.be/Cfp_IIdVnXs?si=jP9R7J1pgkEgPKb4.

  12. jimc5499   1 year ago

    At the time that the "organization" posted bail, his guilt or innocents wasn't known. The Organization made a big issue of their posting bail for a Black man who shot at Police. Their emphasis was that he was Black and that it was Police that he shot at.

    You kind of left that out CJ.

    1. bacchys   1 year ago

      Probably because you made it up.

  13. Johnathan Galt   1 year ago

    Acquittal doesn't mean innocence. Isn't that what Demunists are always telling us?

    1. LIBtranslator   1 year ago

      Those slightly different looters are also slightly different liars.

  14. bacchys   1 year ago

    You've triggered the MAGAts with this one, C.J.

    1. charliehall   1 year ago

      They aren't hard to trigger. There are numerous satire sites on Facebook where idiot MAGAts fall for the fake news every time. Are there any non-idiot MAGAts?

  15. Rockstevo   1 year ago

    I like this story and what Trump should do is refute the ad and then bring up the fact that this was someone who was using a gun to protect himself as all citizens should be able to do. Make the Dems have to make a choice either support the guy and his right to self-defense with a gun or they will have to say they made a mistake in supporting him because guns are bad.

    1. Moderation4ever   1 year ago

      It does seem Republicans limit the self-defense argument to be reserved for white males. How is this case any different than the Kyle Rittenhouse case?

      1. charliehall   1 year ago

        Thousands of Black people served in the Continental Army. They served right alongside White soldiers, carried the same weapons, lived in the same tents and leantos, ate the same lousy food, caught the same contagious diseases, were forced to be inoculated with the same smallpox virus, and at times died for the new country that would not make them citizens in 1868. To defend Rittenhouse but not Stallings is pure racism. And Trump won't walk back his war room's lie on this because he knows that his base is all of America's racists. Remember that some of the Nazis in Charlottesville were "very fine people".

        1. LIBtranslator   1 year ago

          All of this Trumpanzista fawning is in the 1920 National Socialist platform popularized 13July1931 when Bert Hoover got the League of Nations to enforce the drug prohibition clauses in Covenant Article 23 and the Versailles surrender treaty--to Germany's detriment. Those 25 Nazi points fawn over christian mysticism, excoriate foreign immigration, demand mass deportation and urge meddling in trade. All these things the Fuhrer delivered good and hard, the way Republicans enforced the ban on beer till banks folded.

    2. LIBtranslator   1 year ago

      Note to foreign readers: mystics with no clue of logic--but loaded with ideas that libertarians are cowed by formal reasoning--try to set up hobgoblins relying on spurious consistency to trap these atheistic demons into endorsing nationalsocialism. The result, as in the English proverb, is "...to remove all doubt."

  16. LIBtranslator   1 year ago

    Nothing says PEACE CANDIDATE quite so loudly as WAR ROOM.
    WAR on women
    WAR on latinos
    WAR on individual rights

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Brickbat: Sink or Swim

Charles Oliver | 8.28.2025 4:00 AM

Should We Take More Kids From Their Homes or Fewer?

John Stossel | 8.27.2025 6:13 PM

No, These New Studies Don't Show an AI Jobs Apocalypse Is Coming

Jack Nicastro | 8.27.2025 4:05 PM

When It Comes to Fighting Crime With the National Guard, Trump Says, He Can Do 'Anything I Want To Do'

Jacob Sullum | 8.27.2025 3:50 PM

Does It Matter That Donald Trump Is Confused by Magnets?

Eric Boehm | 8.27.2025 1:05 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2025 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Take Reason's short survey for a chance to win $300
Take Reason's short survey for a chance to win $300
Take Reason's short survey for a chance to win $300