The Bipartisan War on Cheap Food
Republicans and Democrats preach about food affordability. Yet their policies continue to make it worse.
Republicans and Democrats preach about food affordability. Yet their policies continue to make it worse.
The Court's 1963 ruling in Bantam Books v. Sullivan is freshly relevant in light of recent efforts to restrict speech through government intimidation.
The defense secretary's asserted authority to control the speech of retired military officers "would chill public participation by veterans," a brief supporting Mark Kelly warns.
What exactly was the point of killing thousands of people and destroying the world economy?
After considering a permanent U.S. presence, the Trump administration instead evacuated American troops once and for all.
America gets 90 percent of its fresh tomatoes from Mexico, and those imports were tariff-free until last year.
Plus: The House passes a short-term FISA extension, Ron Wyden urges fellow Senate Democrats to oppose a "clean" bill, and Norway gets robot buses.
From the war to its mass deportation campaign, the Trump administration is expanding the power of the state under the guise of religion.
Republicans can’t decide whether the war is too early to stop, too late to stop, or nonexistent in the first place.
The administration's goal to lower prices is a good one, but officials don't actually have a plan to make it happen.
The president once said he wanted to kill warrantless electronic spying. So much for that.
After withdrawing a summons in the face of a legal challenge, the government is seeking a grand jury subpoena.
In the guise of investigating "potentially unlawful advertiser boycotts," the commission is punishing the organization for its views.
While there are legitimate antitrust concerns regarding the merger, doomsday predictions are unwarranted.
New study finds that tariffs were responsible for the "entirety of the excess inflation in the core goods category."
Plus: Iranian negotiations fail, the U.S. blockades Iranian ports, the president picks a fight with the pope, and more...
After walking out of peace talks in Pakistan, the U.S. and Iran are now playing a game of chicken.
Robby Soave and Christian Britschgi play a little war vs. music game before they go back over COVID craziness and the joys of Pokémon.
The Court of International Trade is weighing the legality of the import taxes that the president wants to impose under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Any time government has greater control over commerce, there is an increased incentive to buy off officials or lobby for special treatment.
Plus: Bitcoin tolls at the Strait, Trump vs. MAGA, inflation rises, and more...
The 18-year-old college freshman had to have his right eye surgically removed after a federal agent allegedly shot him in the head with a less-lethal weapon.
It is often useful to consult the original source.
The feds have arrested an Army staffer who spoke to a journalist for a book about special operations. The journalist says it's retaliation for exposing corruption.
It was surprising that the Solicitor General did not appear to have thought much about the extent of Congress' legislative power under Section 5.
It would be easy to wave it away and move on. But that's how the U.S. got in such a dire fiscal situation.
The feeling is perfectly consistent: Graham feels it should be as easy as possible for the U.S. to start a war, and as hard as possible to end one.
How the digital privacy rights of millions are at stake in Chatrie v. United States.
Trump and his underlings seem less inclined to worry about the Second Amendment when it protects people outside the MAGA coalition.
The newlywed couple thought they were doing “everything the right way” by reporting to the base to start their lives together.
Both sides claim that they’ve agreed to stop fighting and open the Strait of Hormuz, but the fighting is still happening and Hormuz is still closed.
He's using tools that were advertised as humane, but he isn't hiding the cruelty involved.
The Administration's constitutional arguments are unconvincing, but rejecting them is not necessary to decide United States v. Barbara
"No statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have," U.S. District Judge Richard Leon concluded when he enjoined the project.
Plus: Fox and Sinclair go crying to the FCC over sports streaming, and the Masters ticket lottery makes it too hard to get in
Plus: There is no exit strategy in Iran, Artemis II approaches the Moon, federal taxpayers get to beautify D.C., and more...
Deaths in ICE custody hit a 20-year high in 2025 and a majority now say the agency's actions make Americans less safe.
Both Donald Trump and Joe Biden asked the Supreme Court to abolish nationwide injunctions, which allow federal judges to stop a federal policy from going into effect.
The government's new rule reverses a Biden-era anti-contracting directive and returns to a more contractor-friendly posture. But will this tug of war ever end?
There are far too few checks left on executive power.
The proposal is "an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars and would make Americans less, not more, safe." Thankfully, Congress is unlikely to adopt it.
The administration claims we're a "net oil exporter," but unfortunately that's not quite true.
Plus: pro-tech media sells to big tech, Trump's new tariffs, jobs numbers, and more...
There is no voting crisis that demands federal intervention.
Ultimately, Bondi's fulsome defense of the president could not overcome blowback over her handling of the Epstein files.
Consider it a boozy, tariff-themed version of "I, Pencil."
The agency refused to prosecute alleged national security, labor, and white-collar crime while increasing immigration cases, a new report finds.
Understanding the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara.
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