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

Elon Musk

Elon Musk Becomes the World's First Trillionaire. Is That Such a Bad Thing?

Growing economies benefit all people, not just the uberwealthy.

Joe Lancaster | 6.12.2026 2:45 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Elon Musk | Beata Zawrzel/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom
(Beata Zawrzel/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom)

Elon Musk, the world's richest man, extended his lead by becoming the first trillionaire in world history. Many progressives have bemoaned this result for years, but is there really anything to fear?

The space exploration company SpaceX went public this week, announcing on Thursday an initial price of $135 per share. Musk, the founder, CEO, chief technology officer, and chairman of the board, "holds roughly half of the company's stock, including shares that he might earn far in the future tied to accomplishments such as shooting computer data centers into space and creating a human settlement on Mars," Shira Ovide and Faiz Siddiqui report at The Washington Post. "Those Musk shares in SpaceX are worth about $867 billion at Thursday's IPO price. Combined with the chunk of the automaker Tesla that also belongs to Musk, his stock in the two companies is valued at more than $1.1 trillion combined."

The company's stock opened at $150 and hit $170 after trading began, putting Musk comfortably above the trillion-dollar mark even without the bonus shares tied to space colonization.

The news was hardly a surprise. Musk even referred to himself as a trillionaire in March, in a cheeky reply to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) on X—the platform formerly known as Twitter before Musk bought it outright in 2022.

Of course, Musk does not actually have $1 trillion in checking and savings—he is a trillionaire on paper, and he will only remain one as long as both SpaceX and Tesla maintain healthy stock prices.

Still, it represents a significant milestone in the history of human achievement.

In fact, this has been a long time coming, for Musk or anyone. As Chase Peterson-Withorn notes at Forbes, it took more than a century after the world's first millionaire to crown its first billionaire, with the first trillionaire coming just over 100 years after that.

There was speculation in 2020 that Amazon founder Jeff Bezos could become the first trillionaire when COVID-19 lockdowns sparked a massive uptick in online ordering. Online commenters were unenthused at the prospect, though one wonders how many of them spent the early days of the pandemic stocking up on toilet paper and generic Robitussin.

Ultimately, Bezos' gains leveled off, and his wealth currently sits at a paltry-only-by-comparison $262 billion.

At least as far back as 2021, analysts at Morgan Stanley suggested not only that Musk could become the first trillionaire, but that it would come from SpaceX.

Of course, progressives have blanched at the idea of a single person controlling that much wealth.

"This is not only grossly immoral. It is insane economics," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) wrote in September, when reports suggested Musk's Tesla compensation package could push him above billionaire status. "No society can survive when one man becomes a trillionaire while the working class struggles to survive. This cannot stand."

Earlier this year, Sanders proposed an annual 5 percent wealth tax on U.S. billionaires.

Last month, Ocasio-Cortez declared that no billionaire becomes one honorably: "You can get market power, you can break rules, you can abuse labor laws, you can pay people less than what they're worth, but you can't earn that."

It's simply impossible, per Ocasio-Cortez, that any person could make something—a product, a service, an experience—that creates billions of dollars of value for consumers, without somebody else being worse off as a result.

But SpaceX has pioneered innovations in space travel that very recently seemed like science fiction. "SpaceX's ability to lower launch costs by roughly 90 percent—through reusable first-stage boosters, but also a vertically integrated manufacturing process and a high-cadence flight rate—is mega innovation equal to any of the past quarter century," writes James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute. "That massive cost decline, with another 90 percent or more potentially on the way through full reusability, has fundamentally altered the economics of space and finally made possible the dreams of the original Space Age: orbital cities, deep-space habitats, space-based solar, asteroid mining."

Besides, economics is not zero-sum. Musk's balance sheet growing to a trillion dollars does not mean other people lose money; it means the economy as a whole is growing.

And growing economies are good for everybody, not just the uberwealthy: Between 1990 and 2025, the global share of people living in "extreme poverty" declined by nearly two-thirds, from 2.31 billion to 808 million, even as the global population increased by nearly 3 billion—an accomplishment J.D. Tuccille called "nothing short of miraculous." It's not a coincidence that over that same period of time, global gross domestic product (GDP) roughly quadrupled, boosting countless thousandaires into millionaires and millionaires into billionaires in the process.

This is not to say Musk and his wealth are completely beyond criticism. After all, despite talking a big game about the government butting out of business affairs, his companies have benefited from tens of billions of dollars in government contracts. Just last month, SpaceX won a $4 billion contract with the Space Force.

But it remains the case that many companies, including SpaceX, contribute to the economy by creating a product that others are willing to pay for, and there's nothing exploitative about that.

Even some of the cynics currently naysaying about Musk have shown a bit of hypocrisy on the subject.

Sanders long railed against "millionaires and billionaires," making them a target of his 2016 presidential campaign. But when he ran again in 2020, Sanders suddenly cut the phrase in half, to just "billionaires."

Perhaps not unrelated is the fact that in the intervening years, Sanders himself became a millionaire.

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: Trump’s Border Crackdown Spoils World Cup

Joe Lancaster is an assistant editor at Reason.

Elon MuskPoliticsWealthBusiness and IndustryEconomicsSpaceStock MarketEntrepreneurship
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (71)

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. Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)   2 months ago

    It’s an awesome thing to have happen.
    Bernie, as always, is totally wrong.

  2. Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)   2 months ago

    …X—the platform formerly known as Twitter..

    Stop. Doing. This.

    1. Horatio Cornblower   2 months ago

      Reason largely has. I think Lancaster included it just to point out that Musk bought and owns Twitter/X as part of his holdings.

    2. Rossami   2 months ago

      We'll stop doing it when he changes it to something else. "X" is just a stupid name. It's a placeholder like he couldn't think of anything better and then lost track of time.

      In the meantime, we get to mock it the same way we used to mock "the artist formerly known as Prince".

      1. Stuck in California   2 months ago

        Why would you mock Prince?

        He was getting so fucked by his record company he wasn't even allowed to use his own name for music he wrote AFTER the contract expired. So he changed his name. They sued him, so he changed it to just "The artist" then to that squiggly thing, so he could mock them in court.

        Dude was a performance artist. Mocking him just means you didn't get the absurdity he was making fun of.

      2. LIBtranslator   2 months ago

        Not at all. There was no complete swastika in the handy fonts, so in honor of Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter and in witness of how engineering is poor preparation for politics, the nationalsocialist dupe chose the nearest clumsy improvisation in paying homage to his Fuhrer.

  3. Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)   2 months ago

    Perhaps not unrelated is the fact that in the intervening years, Sanders himself became a millionaire.

    And just how did he do that on a senator salary?

    1. MWAocdoc   2 months ago

      Wise investments?

      1. Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)   2 months ago

        Sure.

        1. JesseAz (RIP CK)   2 months ago

          Hes saying no big deal to billion of British taxpayer money going to criminals in the other thread.

    2. Don Nico   2 months ago

      Corruption, just like Pelosi

      1. Stuck in California   2 months ago

        Oh, he was no where NEAR as good at it as Pelosi.

    3. JesseAz (RIP CK)   2 months ago

      He used campaign funds to pay his wife. It is well documented.

      Also the usual corrupt democrat "publishing" scams.

      His last 2 books only sold 25k each and he was paid millions. Earning 40 dollars per sale.

      Also propping his son up.

      Between April 2021 and November 2024, Sanders directed his presidential and senatorial campaign accounts to deposit $775,000 into the Sanders Institute, campaign finance records show. The arrangement has been a financial windfall for Sanders’s stepson, David Driscoll, who, according to tax disclosures, earned $120,000 working as the nonprofit organization’s executive director in 2023.

      https://www.denvergazette.com/2025/01/24/bernie-sanders-uses-campaign-dollars-to-bankroll-family-charity-6bb8cf2e-35ba-533c-a87a-771abc1863b4/

      1. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

        Another congressional nepo baby no show job.

  4. MWAocdoc   2 months ago

    ""It is insane economics," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) wrote in September"

    Comrade Bernie is unquestionably the world's great expert on insanity in economics.

    1. Nelson   1 month ago

      LOL! Well done, sir! That was as succinct as it was awesome.

    2. Scooter   1 month ago

      Oh, please Mr "I own 3 houses after being on the government payroll my entire life." PLEASE lecture me about sanity or economics!

  5. Gregdn   2 months ago

    Liberal: "No one should have that much money."

    My response: "How much is too much?"

    1. mad.casual   2 months ago

      The correct answer is "Fuck you, cut spending."

      I would've also accepted, "Then turn the goddamned MMM money-printer off!"

    2. middlefinger   2 months ago

      He’s not really a trillionaire

      For leftists: Wealth is not money. The market price is set on a daily basis. buyers and sellers in agreement on price per share of his companies - on paper only (the fugazzi scene in Wolf of Wall Street). If Musk sells all of his shares next week, they would crash. He wouldn’t walk away with a trillion. Not even close.

      Your house is worth 500k. If everyone sells their 500k homes at the same time they become illiquid forcing fire sales. It’s worth 500k today and 200k tomorrow.

      The tide comes in the tide goes out.

      1. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

        Yes, to an extent. But he could also sell his companies without tanking their values, as opposed to dumping his personal stock.k

        1. Zeb   1 month ago

          I'm not sure that he could. He's personally involved enough in running things that if he sold it seems likely that the market would lose some confidence in the companies.

      2. LIBtranslator   2 months ago

        Pretty good.. So what happens when a gaggle of looter sheriffs and agents confiscate thousands of grow homes under a Waffen Bush faith-based asset forfeiture authorization, and prohibition victims decline to pay any mortgage on gubmint loot? What happens to mortgage-backed derivatives values?

        1. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   1 month ago

          I don’t know Hank, what happens? And are you aware that there hasn’t been a Bush in the White House for over 17 years?

          1. Scooter   1 month ago

            He's still waiting to be seen at the Dr; his erection over Graham "Totenkoph" Platner has lasted well over 4 hours.

    3. LIBtranslator   2 months ago

      A sockpuppet too cowardly to call Fabian communists by their proper name, willing to instead traduce free market liberals while strutting for other masked ignoramuses is beneath contempt.

    4. LIBtranslator   2 months ago

      A looter calls the kettle black!

  6. Sometimes a Great Notion   2 months ago

    No society can survive when one man it's government has 39 trillionaire in debt while the working class struggles to survive. This cannot stand.

    FTFY, Burnie. Maybe focus a little more on the financial mismanagement of your organization and we'll all be alot better off, rich and poor alike.

    1. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

      If we just round up and execute all the communists we would stand a much better chance of fixing things.

      1. Sometimes a Great Notion   1 month ago

        Does that include DJT? He did use govt force to take a golden share in US Steel, which is one of biggest communist acts the USA has taken in my lifetime.

        1. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   1 month ago

          Non voting shares. And that’s because it’s a national security issue. It’s not like he’s trying to establish State media. Like the democrats.

          So let’s not play some pedantic game here, ok?

  7. Rick James   2 months ago

    Growing economies benefit all people, not just the uberwealthy.

    I don't even disagree with this statement but I can think of about 10,000 salient rebuttals to it in our modern right-now context.

  8. Vernon Depner   2 months ago

    By the time NASA gets back on the Moon, Elon will have hotels there.

    1. Rick James   2 months ago

      By the time NASA gets back to the Moon, Elon Musk will have released his Tesla Roadster.

      I'm here all week, try the fish.

    2. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

      Elon has already founded SHADO and built a covert base on the moon. He’s got Commander Straker running it, and it’s staffed by hot chicks in purple metallic wigs.

      That’s how he’s going to stop the secret alien invasion.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2PoXfZdYVU

  9. Neutral not Neutered   2 months ago

    I made a 1000 bucks in the time Musk made 1000 million. The boss used to make somewhere around 20 times what the average employee made.

    When I heard Gates was making 32K per second I couldn't help think to myself, reduce the price of your products, pay your employees more, don't just say you would pay more taxes if they made you, pay more taxes.

    I have an idea. As donations to Charities can be used for tax write offs, how about providing a tax write off by donating to Social Security?

    Same percentage of write off for the funds donated to a charity. The money would have to stay in the SS Trust fund unless paid out for SS benefits.

    Warren Buffet said he'd pay more if they made him. Says he is giving it all away to charity when he dies. What better charity than to ensure Social Security never becomes insolvent? It could make him immortal.

    1. Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)   2 months ago

      Taxes were not meant to be a form of punishment to please the unproductive.

      1. Neutral not Neutered   2 months ago

        Agreed

      2. Rick James   2 months ago

        Check out Ronald Reagan over here...

      3. SRG2   1 month ago

        You've accidentally said something intelligent. Did someone hack into your account?

        1. JesseAz (RIP CK)   1 month ago

          Poor shrike.

        2. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   1 month ago

          You might try to do it once, asswipe:

          SRG2 12/23/23
          “Then strode in St Ashli, clad in a gown of white samite and basking in celestial radiance, walking calmly and quietly through the halls of Congress as police ushered her through doors they held open for her, before being cruelly martyred for her beliefs by a Soros-backed special forces officer with a Barrett 0.50 rifle equipped with dum-dum bullets.”

          Just so no one forgets what a slimy piece of shit you are...

    2. MWAocdoc   2 months ago

      Do you ever get tire of reciting scripted slogans and platitudes? Have you ever tried thinking, or is that too strenuous for you?

    3. JesseAz (RIP CK)   2 months ago

      Did you risk time and money creating something people wanted?

    4. Sometimes a Great Notion   2 months ago

      How about we don't feed the federal government more money. Cut spending.

    5. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

      “Warren Buffet said he'd pay more if they made him”

      As opposed to prison? No shit.

      1. Scooter   1 month ago

        Buffet could easily pay more if he'd take a standard salary rather than capital gains dividends. The fact that he refuses makes his hypocrisy all the more glaring.

    6. Eeyore   1 month ago

      "never becomes insolvent",
      LOL

  10. Rick James   2 months ago

    Do Democrats have a Big City Crime problem? No, Big Cities have a Democrat Problem. CRIME DOWN!

    Lights at West Seattle Bridge are out after another copper wire theft
    Copper wire thieves have again killed the lights on the West Seattle Bridge.

    After a report came in June 4, Seattle City Light crews found that copper wires had been cut and stripped from panels along the bridge structure, said spokesperson Julie Moore.

    Just so y'all know, this has happened... repeatedly.

    1. Don Nico   2 months ago

      You want to see a big crime problem, just check out the massive fraud in L.A. and the prep work by the one-party state government 2 days before the election.

  11. creech   2 months ago

    Damn that Walt Disney for creating a comic book promoting the "Scrooge McDuck School of Economics." Every dollar is a "certificate of appreciation" given (freely, one hopes) to someone for providing something the giver wants and values. Sanders, Warren, Marx, and your run-of-the-mill bleeding heart wants to substitute their judgement for yours, at gun point if necessary.

  12. Moo Cow   2 months ago

    Thanks US taxpayers!!

    1. Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)   2 months ago

      Roughly 20% of SpaceX’s total revenue comes from U.S. federal government agencies (such as NASA and the Department of Defense), while the remaining 80% is derived from commercial operations, driven largely by consumer and enterprise subscriptions to its Starlink satellite internet.
      Gosh, just like any other company that supplies the government with something they want.

      1. Moo Cow   2 months ago

        If you think that's the only assistance a company like SpaceX has received from the USA you are wrong.

        1. JesseAz (RIP CK)   2 months ago

          Such a well informed counter with facts.

        2. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

          Like what? And how much?

          1. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

            Moo Cow is one of the dumber leftists that currently post here.

            1. Scooter   1 month ago

              That's a target rich environment.

        3. Vernon Depner   1 month ago

          Selling goods and services to the government is not "assistance".

  13. Eeyore   2 months ago

    I think FOMO had led investors to overpay for the IPO shares. I could be wrong. SpaceX is cool and sexy.

  14. DRM   2 months ago

    In 2002, Elon Musk was just one of ten thousand or so centimillionaires in the world.

    He proceeded to take his money and launch two startups, both in well-established, crowded, heavily-capitalized industries where the incumbent players had numerous close ties to national governments -- auto manufacturing and space rocketry.

    And in a quarter-century, he crushed them all. Tesla's got the auto industry's top-selling model, and SpaceX utterly dominates the entire field of rocket launch.

    People who want to minimize this of course point out that almost everything actually done at Tesla and SpaceX under Musk's leadership is done by people he hired. Well, sure. "All" Musk did was hire the right people when his competitors didn't, and lead them correctly instead of into a ditch.

    And this is why Musk's paper wealth can not be redistributed. Please note I don't say should not; it's can not. The valuations are all predicated on the futures of Tesla and SpaceX being as successful as their pasts, and that's predicated on Musk continuing to run the companies. If someone else takes control of the companies away from Musk, there's no reason to expect them to be any better at running companies than the people who ran GM or United Launch Alliance.

  15. Agammamon   1 month ago

    Really depends, doesn't it?

    Musk currently has priorities largely libertarian-aligned.

    Now imagine Bill Gates. We thankfully will never have to worry about any European trillionaires (Europe's policy to impoverish everyone largely means you only gain power by controlling the government).

  16. SRG2   1 month ago

    Economies are not zero-sum and Musk has managed to do what no-one else did.

    There's nothing wrong with a company having a trillion-dollar market cap, and it's hard to see that there's anything wrong with one person owning >40% of its shares.

  17. Nelson   1 month ago

    “ Elon Musk Becomes the World's First Trillionaire. Is That Such a Bad Thing?”

    No, it is not. It’s quite a good thing, actually.

  18. BadLib   1 month ago

    I've got no problem with Musk being a trillionaire.

    However, unless we are going to get rid of the personal federal income tax, tax laws should be changed for all (including billionaires, millionaires, thousandaires, and pennyaires) to eliminate tax dodges.

    First, get rid of "step up in tax basis at death". For liquid assets, the estate or trust should be required to distribute those assets after paying income tax on the difference between market value at the time of death and the deceased's tax basis. For selected non-liquid assets, such as "Joe and Sons Plumbing" at 101 Main Street, the tax basis would remain unchanged on transfer (but fully documented by the trustee/executor). The inability of an heir to establish their actual tax basis in an inherited asset would result in a tax basis of zero upon sale.

    Second, if assets are pledged as collateral on a loan, the difference between the tax basis on the pledged collateral and current market value should be subjected to income tax at the time of the loan (and, of course, the tax basis on that collateral would be stepped up to market). The entire collateral pledged, not just the amount of the loan, should be subject to this treatment.

    Third, assets in tax deferred retirement accounts that are pledged as collateral on a loan should be subject to 100% tax (i.e., zero tax basis) when pledged. Rational actors would probably choose to withdraw the funds (plus, as necessary, tax and penalties due on them) before pledging those assets as collateral.

    Fourth, ...I'm sure there are other loopholes that ant top notch tax advisor can identify and close...

    1. Get To Da Chippah   1 month ago

      All that sounds punitive and come with ridiculous administrative costs. I'd rather get rid of the personal income tax. Switch to consumption taxes instead. Cut government spending by 80% as well. Pull out of NATO and bring troops on foreign soil back to the US. End all foreign aid. Most of the federal departments can be shut down. Sell off the national parks to the respective states in which they are located.

  19. Aspiring Statesman   1 month ago

    The first trillionaire is not just a milestone in economic growth but (sadly) a milestone in the dollar's long slide toward funny-money. Elon's trillion is worth about 20 times that first billionaire, which is amazing but not the implied 1000 multiplier. By contrast, that first billion was worth *even more* than 1000 times the first million of 100 year earlier (because productivity gains roughly *doubled* the dollar's purchasing power from 1800 - 1900).

  20. Moderation4ever   1 month ago

    Capitalism does not yield equal distributions of wealth. That is not a problem but a feature. The unequal distribution of wealth can when exaggerated or when overly visual create problem. The most stable societies are ones where the distribution of wealth is present but contained. Having one person like Elon Musk be a trillionaire while recent college graduate face a difficult entry level market will create problems. Authors on the Reason site often lament the interest young people show in socialism but fail to see how Billionaires and now a Trillionaire can convince young people that capitalism has failed. Rather than having wealth flowing through the economy large quantities are sequestered in the wealth of a small number of people. Politicians like Sanders and AOC see opportunity in the same way President Trump saw opportunity in resentment of immigrants.

    1. Sir Chips Alot   1 month ago

      you cant be this stupid and low IQ can you?

      1. Moderation4ever   1 month ago

        I can see that you are better at throwing insults than making a rational response to the post. Please tell me where I am wrong?

    2. Zeb   1 month ago

      Owning a successful company is not "Sequestering" wealth. That wealth is out there in the economy and making money for lots of people.

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 Peptide Gray Market Is Already Here. The FDA Is Just Catching Up.

Meagan O'Rourke | 7.27.2026 4:45 PM

'AI Kill Switch Act' Won't Stop Rogue AI, but It Will Slow Down Innovation

Reem Ibrahim | 7.27.2026 3:10 PM

Waltz: Interceptor Shortage Is Biden's Fault, Fake News, and Illegal To Discuss

Matthew Petti | 7.27.2026 12:37 PM

No, Remote Work Is Not Making Us Miserable

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 7.27.2026 12:16 PM

The Energy Department Admits the OMB Canceled Grants 'Solely' To Punish Trump's Political Opponents

Jacob Sullum | 7.27.2026 9:45 AM

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.

Reason's July 4 Special!

For America's 250th, Get 2 Years of Reason for $17.76

Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.

Subscribe to Reason