Pete Buttigieg Says DOGE Was a Good Idea
The progressive Democrat is a front-runner for the 2028 presidential nomination, but has no vision of a smaller, more efficient government.
The progressive Democrat is a front-runner for the 2028 presidential nomination, but has no vision of a smaller, more efficient government.
Only time will tell how great the impact of the ruling will really be. But, at this point, it seems like a very significant decision.
Plus: Entitlement reform, gas prices, the Reason SOTU drinking game, robo-vac spies, and more...
Although Trump has other options for taxing imports, the justices reminded him that he needs clear congressional authorization.
A drop in seizures doesn't necessarily mean a decline in the supply.
And that's especially true if the tariffs are illegal.
The plan recognizes that public opinion is what's holding data centers back the most.
The president can't just bring prices down with the stroke of his pen, no matter what he claimed in his State of the Union speech.
The Trump administration signals an intent to continue appealing to the mainstream, not the far right, on IVF.
President Donald Trump tossed out a bunch of economic statistics during his State of the Union address. Here are three that are just plain wrong.
Large investors are a small, beneficial presence in the single-family home market.
The article explains why the new Section 122 tariffs are illegal, and courts should strike them down, when (as is likely) lawsuits are filed against them.
Those expecting fireworks at tonight's State of the Union will have to sit through the tedious resume-padding of a flagging president.
The president is relying on a provision that the government's lawyers said had no "obvious application" to his goal of reducing the trade deficit.
The Court stopped a massive presidential power grab, but did not resolve a crucial issue about judicial review of executive use of emergency powers.
Attorneys for the Trump administration even admitted that Section 122 can't be applied to address trade deficits. Trump is now trying to do that anyway.
The president neither understands nor appreciates the vital role of judicial independence in upholding the rule of law.
President Trump will undoubtedly keep trying to impose protectionism, but his options are limited.
The prominent conservative legal commentator outlines the case against Trump's latest tariff power grab.
It wasn't the Court's opinion that is an "embarrassment."
It covers many issues raised by the decision.
What explains the fracture in the Supreme Court's "conservative bloc"?
Thanks to our victory in the tariff case before the Supreme Court, businesses that paid billions of dollars in illegally collected tariffs can seek refunds. But the process may be difficult.
The new tariff will be implemented under a 1974 law that gives the president authority to impose tariffs for up to 150 days.
The battle against the president's so-called reciprocal tariffs is won, but the war for free trade and a stable business environment continues.
There are many laws that explicitly authorize the president to impose taxes on imports, but they include limits that Trump was keen to avoid.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize tariffs.
Satellite broadcasting is a strategic counter to state censorship.
The cost of paying the interest is now the central story, and it's a grim one.
Trump's second term is wrecking the Grand Old Party—and Democrats' refusal to own up to Biden's failure is killing the party of Jefferson and Obama.
It's a good thing that trade deficits aren't actually a national emergency.
Plus: the same ole hawkish lies, a familial connection to Barry Goldwater's nomination, and the future of media is prediction markets on Substack.
Like the Iraq War, the planned war with Iran is built on false premises. Unlike the Iraq War, there hasn’t even been a real public debate.
Exiled journalist Fardad Farahzad discusses how Iranians get uncensored news, the state of the protest movement, and whether the Islamic Republic is losing its grip on power.
A grand jury and a federal judge rejected the president’s vendetta against legislators who produced a video about the duty to refuse unlawful military orders.
A federal judge has set the date for the president's push to punish a news organization he dislikes, again.
Finally given a chance to influence trade policy, the vast majority of House Republicans decided it was more important to keep President Donald Trump happy.
Plus: boat subsidies, metaphor alerts, and more Epstein fallout...
A combination of legal action and political resistance helped deal Trump a defeat.
But the numbers are a long way from a veto-proof majority, so Wednesday's vote may be a purely symbolic victory for free traders.
Government agencies rarely check whether their handouts go to the right people. Why?
The story is an exercise in pettiness but also a perfect reason why Congress and the Supreme Court should limit the president's power grab.
The Kentucky congressman tells Reason that Republicans and Democrats engaged in a “cover-up” of epic proportions that will haunt U.S. politics for years.
The president was offended by a video reminding military personnel of their duty to disobey unlawful orders.
While running against Kamala Harris, Trump claimed homicides were "skyrocketing," disregarding the data contradicting that assertion.
Plus: Bad Bunny’s halftime show and more on Super Bowl LX
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 thanksEvery 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 interestedSo 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 thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks