Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • Freed Up
    • The Soho Forum Debates
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Log In

Create new account

Surveillance

FBI Spied on Republican Lawmakers Using Surveillance Powers Many Supported

Senate Judiciary Committee head reveals legislators’ communications were monitored.

J.D. Tuccille | 10.10.2025 7:00 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
President Joe Biden, alongside a surveillance camera pointed at Republican Sens. Ron Johnson, Marsha Blackburn, Tommy Tuberville, and Lindsey Graham. | Illustration: Eddie Marshall | Gage Skidmore | John Pemble | Wikimedia Commons | Midjourney
(Illustration: Eddie Marshall | Gage Skidmore | John Pemble | Wikimedia Commons | Midjourney)

In 2013, whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed that the U.S. government engaged in mass surveillance of the American people. Some of the snooping delved into the content of emails and phone calls. But much of it was of metadata—who people contact and when. While not as revealing as actual messages, it let the government build profiles on people and their affiliations. This week, lawmakers—some of whom allowed federal agencies to accumulate and exercise such power—received a lesson in how disturbing such scrutiny can be when they found out the last administration monitored their calls.

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.

FBI Monitored Nine Lawmakers' Phone Calls

On October 6, the Senate Judiciary Committee announced that "an explosive FBI document obtained by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa) reveals the FBI targeted eight Republican senators' personal cell phones for 'tolling data' as part of its Arctic Frost investigation. One Republican member of the House of Representatives was also impacted. The Arctic Frost investigation formed the basis of Jack Smith's elector case against President Donald Trump."

As part of Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation into Donald Trump's alleged interference in the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, the FBI sought phone call information for the period from January 4 through January 7, 2021, covering the days around the January 6 Capitol riot. The investigation ended with a double whammy when Judge Aileen Cannon of the U.S. District Court of Southern Florida ruled Smith had been illegally appointed, and then the case against Trump was dismissed once the former president won reelection. As a parting shot, Smith published a final report in January in which he claimed he could have secured a conviction.

But the repercussions of that investigation linger on. A 2023 FBI document released by Grassley shows that the FBI wanted "limited tolls records associated with" Sens. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.), Bill Hagerty (R–Tenn.), Josh Hawley (R–Mo.), Dan Sullivan (R–Alaska), Tommy Tuberville (R–Ala.), Ron Johnson (R–Wisc.), Cynthia Lummis (R–Wyo.), and Marsha Blackburn (R–Tenn.), and Rep. Mike Kelly (R–Pa.). As the Senate Judiciary Committee notes, the intercepted "data shows when and to whom a call is made, as well as the duration and general location data of the call."

Edward Snowden Warned Us

Notably, such data was at the core of much of the furor after Snowden revealed mass surveillance by the U.S. government. In a 2014 sort-of debate with a National Security Agency (NSA) flunky, Snowden, who appeared by video because he can't safely visit the U.S. or its allies, commented:

Much of the debate in the U.S. has been about metadata. They've said it's just metadata, it's just metadata, and they're talking about a specific legal authority called Section 215 of the Patriot Act. That allows sort of a warrantless wiretapping, mass surveillance of the entire country's phone records, things like that—who you're talking to, when you're talking to them, where you traveled. These are all metadata events.

Not all the surveillance was about "just" metadata; some of it involved interception of actual message content. But metadata is revealing enough and can be used as the basis for more intrusive snooping. Importantly, the courts have recognized that it requires specific authorization.

"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said the warrantless telephone dragnet that secretly collected millions of Americans' telephone records violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and may well have been unconstitutional," Reuters reported in 2020 of a long-delayed vindication for Snowden. "Evidence that the NSA was secretly building a vast database of U.S. telephone records – the who, the how, the when, and the where of millions of mobile calls – was the first and arguably the most explosive of the Snowden revelations published by the Guardian newspaper in 2013."

Recurring Surveillance Abuses With Congressional Approval

That's the sort of scrutiny the lawmakers were subject to since the government largely carries on as before because the secret nature of such spying makes challenges almost impossible and targeted use of these techniques is permitted by the courts. The lawmakers had company. According to the Senate Judiciary Committee, "Records Grassley made public last month showed the FBI also placed 92 Republican-linked individuals and Republican groups – such as Charlie Kirk's Turning Point USA – under Arctic Frost's investigative scope."

Criminal investigations often do involve surveillance, of course. But this surveillance was conducted by FBI agents giving themselves permission without a warrant and looks an awful lot like one political faction using already suspect domestic spying powers against its political rivals. Again.

I write "again" because the Obama administration was caught spying on communications between the Israeli government and members of Congress a decade ago. At the time, Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) commented, "I'm appalled by it and this is exactly why we need more NSA reform."

Paul is one of the few members of Congress who has consistently recognized the dangers of domestic surveillance and opposed it—even over the objections of colleagues from his party. In the fight for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, he and Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) called out then-Sen. Marco Rubio (R–Fla.) for defending bulk collection of metadata.

But Paul's opposition to widespread surveillance has been a minority position in both major parties. Just last year, Congress reauthorized Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act with bipartisan support over civil libertarian protests. Then-Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) and Sen. John Cornyn (R–Texas) both praised the reauthorization. Now, members of the Senate and the House find themselves on the receiving end of the sort of surveillance they've inflicted on the American people.

It's Time for Surveillance Reform

What they're belatedly discovering is that surveillance isn't necessarily a benign tool used only for the defense of the United States. Like every other power of government, it can be misused and turned by those in power against their enemies for personal or political reasons.

This lesson hasn't escaped observers.

"The very senators who were spied on can ensure that this intrusion does not happen to them or their fellow Americans again," observes Matthew Cavedon, director of the Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice. "Even if the Supreme Court reads the Fourth Amendment too narrowly, Congress can pass a statute requiring the FBI to get a warrant before monitoring call information."

Government officials can't be trusted to exercise restraint in the exercise of their powers. Now that surveillance has been—again—directed at legislators, it's time for them to protect themselves and the rest of us from such abuses.

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: Lena Dunham's New Show Is a Rom-Com for the TikTok Era

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

SurveillanceBiden AdministrationPrivacyInvasion of PrivacyDomestic spyingRepublican PartySenateCongress
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (49)

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. hpearce   7 months ago

    ""The U.S. government engaged in mass surveillance he U.S. government engaged in mass surveillance "

    FALSE

    The State itself does the surveillance
    The state government merely makes laws that the state MANDATES

    @reason is constantly EQUATING the two functions making negative statements about government that implicitly support ANARCHISM

  2. Chumby   7 months ago

    DOGE the FBI.

    Who was the anthrax letter mailer?

    Who is DB Cooper?

    1. JesseAz (RIP CK)   7 months ago

      Patel fired the agents involved.

      https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/10/patel-fires-fbi-agents-ends-cr-15-squad-after-learning-jack-smith-tracked-gop-senators/

      Sarcsullum will be by shortly to scream revenge or some utterly retarded thing.

      1. Chumby   7 months ago

        Did Patel get congressional approval before firing?

        Technically, the FBI is an independent agency.

        1. Bruce Hayden   7 months ago

          Technically, the FBI is part of the Executive Branch. In any case, the actual firings were no doubt done by FBI Director Patel or DD Bongino.

  3. Sometimes a Great Notion   7 months ago

    1. The meta in metadata is a bullshit attempt to obscure the the fact they are collecting 1&0s, aka data.

    2. Honorable mentions: CIA caught spying on the Senate investigation into CIA torture program. We've known since the Church committee these agencies can't be trusted.

  4. Thoritsu   7 months ago

    Imagine what other countries are doing, virtually none of them with even the most basic protections of individual rights.

    Government surveillance only limited by their technical capabilities.

    This entire World Government press, clearly made by the U.N. WHO et al, will place the US against the rest of world on this subject. The only differences between the various rest of world countries is language and trivial political differences easily overcome for the good of the “many”, which is really the “few in power”.

  5. MasterThief   7 months ago

    Not one mention of Biden or democrats in the entire article? Is the entire premise here victim blaming?

    1. Wizzle Bizzle   7 months ago

      Yes, this does smack of "Charlie Kirk deserves what he got because he supported the 2nd Amendment." I'm not sure how many of the Rs who got spied on supported the use of surveillance by politicians against their political foes, which is what we're actually talking about here.

      1. Leo Kovalensky II   7 months ago

        This is true. They only supported surveillance by politicians against their constituents. It's hard to muster sympathy for the cretins that re-upped the Patriot Act and FISA after Snowden.

        1. JesseAz (RIP CK)   7 months ago

          And this is false. Most of the ones listed were against its use again school board parents, catholic churches, j6ers, 501 groups under Lerner, etc.

          As usual youre arguing from ignorance.

          1. Leo Kovalensky II   7 months ago

            Oh sure... they were very much against the thing they voted for being used against politically aligned groups. That's hardly being against something from any principled approach.

            1. Social Justice is neither   7 months ago

              You are being willfully retarded by expanding the scope of what was voted for to include the abuse of power tenuously related. Being able to legally track people like the 9-11 terrorists inside the US is one thing, declaring a PTA a terrorist organization because they don't like the school library selection is another.

              By your logic sex is rape and defending yourself is assault or murder. I assume you're only doing this to support attacking Republicans since that's the only time you respond.

              1. JohnZ   7 months ago

                Sending the Feds to harass an American citizen for being critical of the actions of a school board in W. Virginia over the rape of two girls while letting the rapist go free, sends a message to anyone who dares disagree with Woke.
                It's alright when we do it because it's for "justice"..

              2. Leo Kovalensky II   7 months ago

                Yeah who could have seen the "unintended" consequences of creating another police unit in the federal government, vastly expanding the scope of a domestic spy network, and creating a system of secret courts?

        2. Wizzle Bizzle   7 months ago

          Your statementis also true. I am almost incapable of sympathy for politicians of any stripe. I just think the article misses the point, which should be less about comeuppance and more about how many members of Biden's administration and the FBI should be going to prison for this.

          You can create all the watchdog groups and supposed limits on power you want. This shit clearly isn't going to stop until offending bureaucrats stop getting slaps on the wrist or media gigs and start getting 20-year sentences.

          1. See.More   7 months ago

            You can create all the watchdog groups and supposed limits on power you want. This shit clearly isn't going to stop until offending bureaucrats stop getting slaps on the wrist or media gigs and start getting 20-year sentences.

            We should bring back tarring and feathering.

            1. Wizzle Bizzle   7 months ago

              I'll chip in.

          2. CountmontyC   7 months ago

            Which is why I support a Federal Department of Internal Affairs (FDIA). Give it the full power to investigate and prosecute malfeasance by federal agencies and agents. Give them something to fear.

            1. charliehall   7 months ago

              Almost all federal agencies have such branches. They are called Inspectors General, and their staffs.

              Trump has been firing them. The Trumpists don't want accountability. Judge Cannon is an example of such.

  6. Quicktown Brix   7 months ago

    While I have trouble scrounging any sympathy for the affected senators/representative, this Biden abuse of power not only illustrates the degraded state of 4A, but is illustrative of the problems of the imperial presidency and it's exponential trajectory.

    When we have one person that can order spying on any American, including congress members, the affect can be chilling and silence opposition.

  7. Uomo Del Ghiaccio   7 months ago

    It's hard to put the genie back in the bottle.

    Benjamin Franklin's quote "A republic, if you can keep it" is a historic statement underscoring the fragility of a republican form of government and the responsibility of its citizens to maintain it
    . The comment serves as a timeless reminder that a government "of the people" is not self-sustaining and requires active, informed, and virtuous participation from the citizenry to endure. (Google AI)

  8. Leo Kovalensky II   7 months ago

    This is a good start, but, the root of the problem isn't these corrupt individuals, it's that the FBI has broad powers in the first place. Without meaningful reform this will just happen again the next time a statist with a thirst for his opponents blood gets back in office, which *checks watch*... uh...

    Any guesses as to why we won't get reform? I'll take bets that there will be a similar purge at the FBI when the administration changes parties again. The biggest problem with these politicians is that they all seem to think their side will be in power forever. Thus, they never vote to restrain power even though the reality is the pendulum swings every 4-8 years.

    1. JesseAz (RIP CK)   7 months ago

      Why is your first impulse when dems do something bad to make it a both sides argument? You never do this when reason criticizes the gop.

      Its not like this is a one time thing from democrats. Obama also spied on reporters and congressmen.

      1. Leo Kovalensky II   7 months ago

        Which side authorized Patriot and FISA Section 702?

        It is both sides inasmuch as the "sides" are really that different at all.

      2. JohnZ   7 months ago

        Obama was one of the worst presidents, maybe even as bad as Wilson and FDR.

        1. Leo Kovalensky II   7 months ago

          It's hard to keep GW Bush off of this list. Certainly worse than Obama, but probably slightly better than Wilson, FDR, and LBJ.

          1. charliehall   7 months ago

            Wilson and Roosevelt were leading the US in wars. The Reason Commenters would have sided with the enemies.

  9. Alan Vanneman   7 months ago

    The assumption here is that the government should never ever investigate members of Congress, even if they could be committing crimes. This is a false assumption. It is quite "arguable" that on Jan. 6, 2021, some members of Congress did engage in seditious activities in support of Donald Trump's efforts to illegally seize power and overturn our system of government. In the case of the Obama administration, it is almost certain that the Israeli government committed crimes in its attempt to thwart President Obama's agreement with Iran, including contacts with members of Congress.

    1. Leo Kovalensky II   7 months ago

      Or... get a warrant.

    2. charliehall   7 months ago

      "some members of Congress did engage in seditious activities in support of Donald Trump's efforts to illegally seize power and overturn our system of government"

      And of course the Trump Judge halted that.

      " it is almost certain that the Israeli government committed crimes"

      How? The government of Israel is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

  10. JohnZ   7 months ago

    Who knows how many Americans the FBI has spied on since that rancid creation. Jayne Edgar Hoover spied on every politician including JFK. How many had he blackmailed to remain in power?
    Even now we're being spied on, surveilled, watched, data collected and tracked. Flock cameras are everywhere, tracking your movements. License plate readers, video cameras, tracking devices installed in your vehicles.
    Welcome to the Jewnited States of Surveillance.

    1. charliehall   7 months ago

      "Jewnited"

      Thank you for admitting your anti-Semitism. It is really common among Trump supporters today.

  11. MollyGodiva   7 months ago

    I don't see a problem with the FBI trying to collect evidence against people who engaged in the first attempted coup is US history. Being a Republican or Member of Congress does not grant immunity to treason.

    We are going to need more bridges.

    1. damikesc   7 months ago

      Again, these rules will suck for you.

      I mean, Obama and Biden CLEARLY engaged in an attempted cop against Trump.

      1. charliehall   7 months ago

        "Obama and Biden CLEARLY engaged in an attempted cop against Trump."

        Goebbels taught you well. He mastered the art of accusing opponents of precisely what the Nazis were doing.

    2. Leo Kovalensky II   7 months ago

      I don't see a problem with the FBI trying to collect evidence against people who engaged in the first attempted coup is US history.

      And this is why you're part of the problem. Everyone is fine using government power against people they don't agree with.

      4A - just like 1A, 2A - are limitations on government and therefore protect the rights of ALL people under the jurisdiction of the US. It doesn't matter if there is a D, R, or I after your name. Full stop.

      1. MollyGodiva   7 months ago

        Traitors who tried to destroy the country are not just people I disagree with. They tried to overthrow a clean election and install an unelected President. They are exactly the type of people a government needs to go after. Unfortunately Trump is also a traitor.

        Every person who was not allowed to be in the Capital should have been shot on their way out. Our country would be much better if that happened and we stopped MAGA fascism right away. The death toll inflicted my MAGA fascists will be orders of magnitude higher.

        1. See.More   7 months ago

          Every person who was not allowed to be in the Capital should have been shot on their way out.

          So, shooting trespassers is a'ok. Got it!

          1. MollyGodiva   7 months ago

            Shooting traitors who tried to destroy the US democracy.

            1. Bruce Hayden   7 months ago

              You volunteering to be the first martyr for your cause?

        2. Bruce Hayden   7 months ago

          Clean election? Keep dreaming.

        3. Leo Kovalensky II   7 months ago

          You are a fascist.

    3. JohnZ   7 months ago

      You are either ignorant or completely brainwashed.
      There was NO attempted coup on Jan.6.
      IF it had been, there would have been firearms involved. It would have been much worse but instead you brainlessly parrot back the rubbish the MSM spewed that most people ignore.
      By now we know the FBI had nearly 250 of its people infiltrating the peaceful demonstration doing who knows what they were attempting to create.
      BY the way, who is Ray Epps?
      The only gunfire was from a disgrace of a cop who murdered a woman.
      Hundreds of people were arrested, some of whom were not even there and left to rot in solitary for four years.
      This is the kind of treatment dictators use against their enemies.

      1. charliehall   7 months ago

        "There was NO attempted coup on Jan.6."

        You can return to reality at any time.

        " we know the FBI had nearly 250 of its people infiltrating the peaceful demonstration "

        That was no peaceful demonstration. It was the first violent takeover of the US capitol since 1814. And you are a supporter of that.

        "disgrace of a cop who murdered a woman"

        Not murder. The woman was in the process of committing a violent felony. But the fact is that you support Trump's attempt to create a Fascist dictatorship as you have no problem with ICE using violence to assault and kidnap people who have not committed any crime.

  12. PatH   7 months ago

    The conclusion talks about protection from "abuses"? A question is where is the line between legitimate investigation vs abuse.

    For example, the article suggests that the individuals who were subject to "surveillance" under Project Arctic Frost were surveilled WITHOUT a warrant? I thought I had read somewhere else that warrants were procured, which would suggest a judge had to sign off on those warrants? Can you clarify and/or provide the nuances, e.g. were the GOP elected officials subject to warrants (including a judge sign off) vs others (and who were they) for whom warrants were not secured? Are we conflating those people who were investigated under legitimate warrants that went through an appropriate legal process from those who are not?

    And I'm curious if we're using the term "surveillance" to include realtime/current communications and/vs historical data of time and place without content?

    As I'm personally less concerned if elected officials (or others) may have had meta data (or perhaps even conversations) subjected to "surveillance" IF they met a legal standard that a judge signed off on vs an absolutist type suggestion that NO US citizen (including elected official) should ever have their phones "monitored" (time/place; who called; content of communication) because the monitoring is an abuse in and of itself.

    Essentially is the point of the article whether "surveillance" of any citizen is appropriate or that we need to tighten up the laws on what the legal standard is before surveillance can begin (with and without a warrant)?

    1. charliehall   7 months ago

      ICE does warrantless searches all the time and almost everyone here supports it. Hypocritical fascists.

      1. JohnZ   7 months ago

        You're a bootlicking , brainwashed , ignoramus.
        It was not an attempted coup.
        Go back to your CNN and MSNBC.

  13. JohnZ   7 months ago

    There is so much to write about but, one thing that most can agree on is that the events and the actions of the four years of the Obiden administration which was more accurately described as the Otto Penn administration, could only be described as something close to a dictatorship made up of faceless bureaucrats and power hungry, stop at nothing , officials like Merrick Garland, James Comey and Anthony Fauci.
    Four years of what we as Americans can expect if and when these people obtain such power again.
    Make no mistake about it. These people are not ready to concede anything and their goal is absolute power and control.

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

Trump's Responses to Kimmel and Comey Highlight His Contempt for Freedom of Speech

Jacob Sullum | 5.6.2026 12:01 AM

Elizabeth Warren Wrongly Implies Jeff Bezos Isn't Paying Enough Taxes

Robby Soave | 5.5.2026 5:40 PM

The People vs. CEQA

Christian Britschgi | 5.5.2026 3:25 PM

How the Slaveholding Founders Really Felt About Slavery

Timothy Sandefur | 5.5.2026 1:20 PM

Can We Ever Trust the Government To Be Honest About War?

Alexander Langlois | 5.5.2026 12:27 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 Add Reason to Google

© 2026 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

I WANT FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS!

Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.

Make a donation today! No thanks
r

I WANT TO FUND FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS

Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.

Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
r

SUPPORT HONEST JOURNALISM

So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.

I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK

Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.

My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
r

HELP KEEP MEDIA FREE & FEARLESS

Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

STAND FOR FREE MINDS

Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.

Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK AGAINST SOCIALIST IDEAS

Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BAD IDEAS WITH FACTS

Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BAD ECONOMIC IDEAS ARE EVERYWHERE. LET’S FIGHT BACK.

Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

JOIN THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM

Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BACK JOURNALISM THAT PUSHES BACK AGAINST SOCIALISM

Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BACK AGAINST BAD ECONOMICS.

Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks