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

Surveillance

With REAL ID, America Now Has National ID Cards and Internal Passports

To make us safer, the feds required standardized ID and one-stop shopping for identity thieves.

J.D. Tuccille | 5.23.2025 7:00 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
People in a long line, seen from above, waiting to get a REAL ID at an Illinois Department of Motor Vehicles. | TANNEN MAURY/UPI/Newscom
(TANNEN MAURY/UPI/Newscom)

I don't have a REAL ID–compliant driver's license and don't plan to get one. I figure if the federal government wants to implement internal passports in the U.S., which after 20 years of political and legal battles is now happening, we might as well be honest about it and use actual passports. So, from now on, I'll enter the secure areas of airports and federal buildings with my actual passport, which is good for travel both external and internal to the U.S. Or we could call REAL ID–compliant licenses, which must adhere to federal standards, "national ID cards." A little honesty is a good thing.

You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.

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

It Was Always a National ID Card

"The United States is getting a national ID card," security expert Bruce Schneier wrote in 2005 when the REAL ID Act was passed. "The REAL ID Act … establishes uniform standards for state driver's licenses, effectively creating a national ID card. It's a bad idea, and is going to make us all less safe."

The federal government denies that REAL ID means we all now have to carry national identification cards. Sort of. In 2007, after the REAL ID Act had been enacted but in the midst of state refusal to implement the law and popular opposition, then-Sen. Lamar Alexander (R–Tenn.) conceded the nature of the beast. "It may be that we need a national identification card," he commented on the floor of the Senate. "I've always been opposed to that. We live in a different era now."

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) still denies that standardized identification documents required by the U.S. government for domestic air travel and entrance to federal facilities are national ID.

"REAL ID is a national set of standards, not a national identification card," DHS insists in a FAQ. "REAL ID does not create a federal database of driver license information. Each jurisdiction continues to issue its own unique license, maintains its own records, and controls who gets access to those records and under what circumstances."

That's true-ish, but beside the point. The REAL ID Act set minimum standards for the information contained in an identification card, the conditions (such as citizenship or legal residency) qualifying a person to receive a card, and for the documentation that must be presented for an application. The law also prescribes that information be presented on identification cards in "a common machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements." That common technology is helpful since the law also requires that ID issuers "provide electronic access to all other States to information." Data is mostly shared through the State-to-State Verification Service, which links those different databases.

Everything besides that is just cosmetic. That includes the names of issuing states, color schemes, and background imagery. They may make ID cards look different from issuing state to issuing state, but they're all interchangeable, with shareable data.

And none of this is going to make us safer—which was the justification for the law.

REAL ID Can't Fix Corrupt Officials

"All but one of the Sept. 11 hijackers carried government IDs that helped them board planes and remain in the country illegally," DHS then-Secretary Michael Chertoff complained in 2008 amidst debates over REAL ID and refusals by some states to comply.

But most people with fake driver's licenses don't acquire them by walking up to a Department of Motor Vehicles clerk with a pleasant smile and a note from mom. Instead, they buy them from corrupt officials.

"The manager of the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles office at Springfield Mall was charged yesterday with selling driver's licenses to illegal immigrants and others for up to $3,500 apiece," The Washington Post's Jerry Markon reported in 2005. That was "the second time in two years that a Northern Virginia DMV employee was accused of fraudulently selling licenses for cash."

If corrupt officials are bypassing normal bureaucratic procedures to issue fraudulent identification documents, standardizing those documents across the nation won't fix the problem. But it could create the illusion of enhanced security. And it will create that illusion even as all that standardized data is placed in linked databases that actually enable identity fraud.

One-Stop Shopping for Identity Thieves

"The massive amounts of personal information that would be stored in State databases that are to be shared electronically with other States, as well as unencrypted data on the card, could provide one-stop shopping for identity thieves," then-Sen. Daniel Akaka (D–Hawaii) warned during committee hearings on the REAL ID Act. "REAL ID may make us less secure by giving us a false sense of security."

Yes, government officials argue that their agencies' database security is super-secure. They would never let hackers go browsing through their records for interesting information or for the makings of new identities. But these are the same officials who regularly hand vast quantities of sensitive records to foreign hackers (think of the Office of Personnel Management data breaches) or to aggrieved workers (as with some IRS records leaks). There may, in fact, be nothing less secure than a secure government database.

Feeding the Expectation of Producing Your Papers

Perhaps the worst part, though, is that national IDs and internal passports as embodied in REAL ID add to the expectation that we must prove our identities on demand to the satisfaction of government officials. REAL ID makes it ever easier to insist that we produce papers containing standardized information to engage in everyday activities.

"A national identity system works against the interests of free people and a free society in several ways," Jim Harper wrote in 2018 for the Cato Institute. "A national ID system undercuts the important background privacy protection of practical obscurity: the difficulty of learning about people when records are not created or when data are difficult to access or interpret."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Alexis Hancock emphasizes that 20 years of delays in implementing REAL ID have done the U.S. no harm, while the arrival of standardized national ID has real risks. Hancock helpfully points to a number of physical and electronic documents that can be used in the place of REAL ID–compliant identification to fly and to enter federal facilities.

Passports are on that list, and that's what I'm sticking with. That it's now used as a standardized internal passport and national ID card is exactly the point I'm making every time I'm required to present it so I can go about my business.

The Rattler is a weekly newsletter from J.D. Tuccille. If you care about government overreach and tangible threats to everyday liberty, this is for you.

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

NEXT: Review: The Free Market Comes to The Sims 4

J.D. Tuccille is a contributing editor at Reason.

SurveillancePrivacyNational IDInvasion of PrivacyFederal governmentNational Security
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (46)

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   2 days ago

    Fitting that Real ID became required while "Show me your papers" Trump is president.

    Log in to Reply
    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 days ago

      Yeah, too bad it was out of sequence with the "Shut up and get on the train" of the Obama-Biden years, right?

      Retard.

      Log in to Reply
      1. JohnZ   2 days ago

        You vill take ze vaxx or lose your job.

        Log in to Reply
      2. Otto Penn, American President 2021-2025   2 days ago

        Sarc is fine with Real ID. He just hates Trump. No internal logic or consistency. Just rage and spite.

        Log in to Reply
    2. TrickyVic (old school)   2 days ago

      Do you know when the legislation that authorized it was passed?

      Log in to Reply
      1. Ska   2 days ago

        Forget it, he's rolling.

        Log in to Reply
  2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 days ago

    TRUE LIBERTARIANS HATE NATIONS AND HAVING TO PROVE YOU ARE A CITIZEN!

    (Am I qualified to write for Reason?)

    Log in to Reply
    1. Zeb   2 days ago

      You should have to prove your citizenship to vote, get a passport and other things where it actually matters. To get on a plane or a bus, fuck no.

      Log in to Reply
    2. Otto Penn, American President 2021-2025   2 days ago

      Scum like MAPedo Jeffy and Sarc despise the concept of citizenship. America is just a marketplace to buy cheap crap from China, and even cheaper booze. And all of it on government welfare.

      Log in to Reply
  3. mad.casual   2 days ago

    "(*US* National) Borders are just an abstract social construct, a figment of imagination."

    "US should adopt looser cabotage laws, like the EU."

    "Kyle Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there."

    Reason Magazine is a part of the problem.

    Log in to Reply
  4. GroundTruth   2 days ago

    Fuck the TSA
    Fuck the DHS
    Fuck the cowards in Congress who are more interested in keeping their position than protecting the Constitution.
    Fuck the masses of cowards in the populace who screamed "please do something, anything, I'm so scared!" after 9/11.

    Log in to Reply
    1. JohnZ   2 days ago

      I agree.

      Log in to Reply
    2. DesigNate   1 day ago

      Can’t argue with any of that.

      Log in to Reply
  5. Raccroc   2 days ago

    I a curious, what databases do you think using a passport and non-Real ID is going to keep you out of?

    While I wish they would just come out and say this is a Nation ID instead of couching it as an anti-terrorist/safety measure, I don't know that the end result is a bad thing.

    The federal government keeps huge troves of data on us; however, it is in a bunch of disparate databases. This causes a number of issues: It is costly to maintain the systems, it can be time consuming and costly maintain the information and to share information across systems, your data is only as safe as the weakest link in those systems who have shared you data, and it is very hard for any one person (e.g. a Senator) to know exactly what or how much data is store in order to regulate its use or collection.

    Now, we finally have a system in place that can help rectify that. A single system that can be used across agencies that has a common set of standards. While there is a lot of fear mongering from certain corners, the fact is, data integrity, security, oversight, cost savings, and such should all become better for it.

    Log in to Reply
    1. mad.casual   2 days ago

      Whom do you think you're fooling?

      Anyone interested in individual liberty, cybersecurity, or both objectively recognizes the lack of a national ID as a good thing. With a national ID in a centralized database you can attack people as a nation. The further you get from that, the more you have to attack people as individuals.

      Moreover, you falsely and dishonestly assume or infre that the government isn't possible of running one large database as inefficiently or even at a greater cost as it runs several smaller distributed ones, or even both together.

      The only reason you would want a national ID is to herd, steer, and defend people like sheep. Otherwise, any given attacker is "free" to leap into whatever cage they can manage to break into at the zoo... at their own risk.

      Log in to Reply
      1. Raccroc   2 days ago

        Anyone interested in individual liberty, cybersecurity, or both objectively recognizes the lack of a national ID as a good thing.

        Not true at all. Some folks may feel that way, but it is by no means anywhere close to the consensus you speak of. IF you could get the Feds to stop vacuuming up and storing our info, then sure, that might be better that an National ID. But you cannot. You will not.
        They are already doing it and will continue to do so.

        Centralizing, having a standardized data set, and having a single entity responsible for operation and security is the only way to keep that data at all safe or build any sort of safeguards.

        I did not assume or infer that the government isn't possible of running one large database as inefficiently or even at a greater cost as it runs several smaller distributed ones. I am fully aware of how incompetent the government can be. But I also know that in order to build security and efficiency you have to at least start with a sound core model. That means a centralized system. That means a standardized set of data.

        Even more important, to me at least, is a common set of laws and procedures as to how that data is used. Right now, you have dozens of state and federal agencies each with their own databases along with their own policies of how it is used and shared. Little to no oversite. Little to no standardization.

        Log in to Reply
        1. mad.casual   2 days ago

          Some folks may feel that way, but it is by no means anywhere close to the consensus you speak of.

          False. This is pretty solid "principle of least privilege" and it's rather core to cybersecurity and even data science down to the programming or even linguistic level.

          You don't specifically try to consolidate tables within a database as that can and does make the database less efficient and reliable.

          Moreover, true to form, I state that the government will add cost to maintaining and even raising the current standards and you state: "Little to no oversite. Little to no standardization." Not only is there not "little to no oversite" at the state (or federal) level, oversight isn't part of the data and is an added cost to consolidating and maintaining the data. You're explicitly calling to spend more money on the (blatantly false) promise of saving... something.

          This is retarded, automagic, "If you build it they will come.", 90s-era tech bubble thinking.

          Log in to Reply
          1. Raccroc   14 hours ago

            "False. This is pretty solid "principle of least privilege" and it's rather core to cybersecurity and even data science down to the programming or even linguistic level. You don't specifically try to consolidate tables within a database as that can and does make the database less efficient and reliable."

            Nothing to do with anything I said. Do you really think PoLP is served better by having FTC, FBI, IRS, Postal Service, HHS, FAA, DHS, and Fed Reserve (those are all agencies who have large amounts of information on virtually every US citizen) each sucking in their own data with their polices and their own levels of oversite? There is very little to no oversite outside of those agencies and that can change on whim (or election, or court ruling, or... ).

            Creating a centralized system allows you to build a single dedicated security team to harden and maintain it, create standards of information flow to and from the system, and create a single point to audit.

            Even better is you can create a series of locks and gates to control not only information flow, but what information is allowed. This would allow a centralized team (or at least a team outside of the affected agency) to have to approve any new type of data collection coming in and to set permissions to how information flows out.

            These are the reasons large companies use centralized systems for most data.

            "You don't specifically try to consolidate tables within a database as that can and does make the database less efficient and reliable." - This is a stupid red herring. Nobodies is suggesting having a single db file running on a some 2u rack server somewhere. Nor is the idea to have all data is one location. You build a large set of clusters in data centers around the county that provide fast and reliable/redundant access. It is done all the time in in corporate America and within the individual agencies. The DOD/ US Military is particularly good at this (at least some branches).

            "This is retarded, automagic, "If you build it they will come.", 90s-era tech bubble thinking." - I have zero idea what this means. If the federal government mandates it in legislation, agencies will use it. What the fuck that has to do with Dot-Coms I have no idea.

            Log in to Reply
        2. Davy C   1 day ago

          The federal government cannot tell the states that they cannot have databases, so we will never have "a single entity responsible for operation and security". So we basically get none of the benefits you list.

          Log in to Reply
          1. mad.casual   18 hours ago

            And even if they did, they "couldn't" tell private organizations to do the same and there will always be advantage to be had to having more up-to-date and decentralized info.

            Already at this point about half the time there's any sort of federal incident or crime there are reams of freely available online indicators and statements online that federal regulators "discover" after-the-fact (from private sources they're already monitoring and censoring).

            The call for a more centralized database is rather directly like the call for gun registries, gun owner registries, or some sort of better, more central arms registry that will make gun crime go away. What is sought doesn't generally exist and, inasmuch as it does, it's just blind wish casting by people who just want to control other people and assume that, not even controlling but, just having more information automagically makes that happen. They don't even really want the database or the information or the additional efficiency. They want the control.

            Log in to Reply
      2. TrickyVic (old school)   2 days ago

        Does a national ID have to be a physical thing. Or can it be a unique identifier in a database?

        Log in to Reply
        1. mad.casual   2 days ago

          Even at that, internal to a database, you might have a unique identifier to a person but you don't just dump, e.g., every license they may own and every gun, vehicle, explosive, or other good held by privilege under those licenses to the unique ID into the one field or table. You don't even necessarily foreign key everything back and forth. The fingerprints go in the fingerprint database that has limited access and changes slowly and the aliases go in the generic database of police reports where anyone on any stakeout with a microphone on people they can't see can write in "Boss?" and "Jefe?". None of which goes in the federal database because being a Boss with fingerprints isn't a crime, let alone a crime of federal interest.

          The idea is stupid and assumes (if it's not just ignoring complexity and reality altogether) a unified context for all information, or human/citizen information, anywhere within the borders (or other scope of the database). It's technocratic "The problem must be that the user is using it wrong." bullshit.

          Log in to Reply
    2. GroundTruth   2 days ago

      Yup, and a single button can turn you into an "un-person", unable to get anything done, or even buy food if they succeed in killing off cash.

      Log in to Reply
      1. EISTAU Gree-Vance   1 day ago

        All true, but the Real (haha) concern is, how are POC supposed to fly now? We have been told how challenging getting an ID is for them. Or perhaps they are just lazy, I don’t know. Ask a liberal.

        This is a racist requirement and should be opposed on those grounds.

        Log in to Reply
    3. Zeb   2 days ago

      That lack of efficiency and interconnection is what keeps a master database from forming that would allow any federal agency to pull up any info on any American whenever they want. It is exactly the reason people oppose this and other efficient national registries for things like guns.

      Log in to Reply
  6. JohnZ   2 days ago

    The creation of Real ID is a bad idea but the worst one was the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Then comes the FBI,TSA, CIA, CDC, IRS, ATF, NIH, BLM, NSA, the Pentagon, the Federal Reserve (feral reserve).... I've run out of suggestions.
    It's obvious real ID has made little or no difference in controlling our borders, which makes the entire argument a joke.
    It's about controlling the masses of unwashed, near literate and easily mind controlled Mercans who believe everything the
    government and the MSM tells them.
    I have no Real ID, no cell phone, no house payments and no credit card debt. I suppose that puts me on the watch list.
    P/S I have no intention of flying anywhere for any reason.

    Log in to Reply
    1. Lester75   1 day ago

      I vastly prefer traveling by train. Of course that makes me un-American according to Trumpland because passenger trains no longer directly burn coal, oil or gasoline.

      Log in to Reply
  7. Wizzle Bizzle   2 days ago

    *If corrupt officials are bypassing normal bureaucratic procedures to issue fraudulent identification documents...*

    Then we should torture them to death in public. And every channel should be forced to carry it. When corrupt police officers are sent to prison, it is about the worst punishment imaginable. Why is it that every other type of "public servant" doesn't receive similar treatment?

    Log in to Reply
  8. Otto Penn, American President 2021-2025   2 days ago

    I won’t get a Real ID. I have VA ID card. Which does all the same things. At least that saves me a few bucks.

    Log in to Reply
  9. Vesicant   2 days ago

    >one-stop shopping for identity thieves

    Yeah, it's not like having 50 different drivers license formats made it easy to forge one, because everybody everywhere of corse has perfect eidetic recall of all 50 formats. And what do you mean, one-stop? Are the Feds taking over the state DMVs?

    If there's something that's bad about a common format, when is 'reason' going to stop using HTML and JavaScript on its soi-disant 'website'?

    And I fail to see how a national passport is better than a state-by-state drivers license.

    Log in to Reply
  10. MWAocdoc   2 days ago

    The same things that this article criticizes as wrong with a national identification system are also wrong with state issued and required drivers licenses. We long ago got to the point where criticizing just one new abuse of government power seems trivial in the face of the thousands of other similar abuses on the books already. Why does the state have the authority to require a drivers license?

    Log in to Reply
    1. charliehall   1 day ago

      The state owns the roads.

      Log in to Reply
  11. Rick James   1 day ago

    But most people with fake driver's licenses don't acquire them by walking up to a Department of Motor Vehicles clerk with a pleasant smile and a note from mom. Instead, they buy them from corrupt officials.

    Why would you bother with a 'fake' id when the real (lower-case-r) ID is painfully easy to acquire?

    Log in to Reply
  12. AT   1 day ago

    My DL has had that little star in the corner for years. I honestly don't even remember the last time it didn't.

    Hasn't been a problem for me. I get the philosophical objections, but it's never affected me in any way whatsoever. So, I'm honestly not going to spend too much time speculating why it's so bad when it hasn't ever actually been so.

    Log in to Reply
    1. Zeb   1 day ago

      How do you feel about registering firearms? It never affects you until it does. My big objection, at least, is that it sets up the infrastructure for many bad things, similarly to how a firearms registry sets up the infrastructure for confiscation.

      Log in to Reply
      1. AT   1 day ago

        I don't mind registering them. I just think it's tragic when they all fall overboard during boating accidents.

        Log in to Reply
        1. mad.casual   18 hours ago

          "We should give them the right or ability, at whatever trivial cost, not because they need it, but because it might someday yield some dividends (which they allege)." isn't rational. It's the irrationality of the compulsive gambler or blind sycophant. If it saved money or offered material benefit, people would sign up for it voluntarily. It's the same thing as everyone who drives a Tesla to save money, wears a mask because they're cheap and "mine protects you, yours protects me", and gets vaxxed "for free".

          Log in to Reply
          1. AT   4 hours ago

            I'm not disagreeing with you MC. I'm just saying that I'm not going to start hyperventilating over a star on my DL when I've had one as long as I can remember with no meaningful effect on my life.

            If that changes, then perhaps my amount of concern will. But this isn't a "first they came for the..." type issue. Until it (if) ever is, ngl, getting worked up about this falls squarely in the First World Problems category.

            Log in to Reply
      2. mad.casual   18 hours ago

        We didn't just get to the point where everyone just assumes a Governor or a President has the right and/or ability to shut down Churches and bars and hospitals and retirement homes from the passage of the "We give them the right to shut down all these businesses act." No one would approve that.

        This is in Hayeks' "Serfdom". No 5 yr. plan starts out with "We're going to murder all the Jews/Boers/Kulaks."

        Log in to Reply
  13. charliehall   1 day ago

    "There may, in fact, be nothing less secure than a secure government database."

    Nothing on Hillary Clinton's server was ever compromised. Had she used the official State Department server, it would have been on Wikileaks like everything else there. Republicans wanted to prosecute her for keeping her communications secure.

    Log in to Reply
    1. Otto Penn, American President 2021-2025   1 day ago

      Are you really this fucking stupid? She was hacked by Russian and ChiCom assets.

      Just fuck off. Go back to Vox, Rolling Stone, or whatever rock you crawled out from under.

      Log in to Reply
    2. DesigNate   1 day ago

      Fucking parody.

      Log in to Reply
  14. Ed Reppert   1 day ago

    "Any time a society becomes so complex as to require id cards, it is time to leave." -- Robert A. Heinlein's character "Lazarus Long", in "Time Enough For Love", 1973.
    Problem: where we gonna go? Lazarus went on to say "the nice thing about space travel is that it made it possible to leave". Unfortunately, we aren't there yet. 🙁

    Log in to Reply
    1. JohnZ   14 hours ago

      I have that book. Time to read it again.

      Log in to Reply
  15. Roarii   14 hours ago

    Real ID is a stupid law. I have a Canadian Passport, US Passport, and a NEXUS card all of which individually are sufficient ID for the TSA to board a plane.

    Yet, I cannot take all three down to my state and get a real ID. Instead the state requires additional proof. Everyone I know that tries to get one is in for a multi hour process. My wife applied my special needs daughter for a hunting license so that she could meet the documentation requirement. (Social workers suggestion) Totally bollixed!

    As such, every time I board a plane I give the TSA agent my Canadian passport to sgive a symbolic middle finger to the system.

    If you don’t want to get a Real ID then just request a passport card from the feds. It is a 15 minute appointment at the post office and they are good for 10 years. Far less hassle.

    Log in to Reply
    1. Ben of Houston   27 minutes ago

      Wow. In Texas, it was just a normal drivers license renewal plus show my passport.

      Log in to Reply

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

The Supreme Court Said States Can't Discriminate in Alcohol Sales. They're Doing It Anyway.

C. Jarrett Dieterle | 5.24.2025 7:00 AM

Cocaine Hippos, Monkey Copyrights, and a Horse Named Justice: The Debate Over Animal Personhood

C.J. Ciaramella | From the June 2025 issue

Harvard's Best Protection Is To Get Off the Federal Teat

Autumn Billings | 5.23.2025 6:16 PM

Trump's Mass Cancellation of Student Visas Illustrates the Lawlessness of His Immigration Crackdown

Jacob Sullum | 5.23.2025 5:30 PM

Come July, Keys Will Be De Facto Illegal In Minnesota

Christian Britschgi | 5.23.2025 5:00 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

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

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

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

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

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!