On Wednesday, April 1, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on President Trump’s attempt to change birthright citizenship policy through executive order. We’ll be listening to the oral arguments here, and so can you.

There are two issues. The first is the procedural question: Can a president change the interpretation and application of the Constitution through executive order?

Now, the almost immediate answer is going to be an emphatic “no,” but it’s a bit more complicated than that. Each branch of the federal government has an obligation to interpret the Constitution. Officials in each branch take an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.”  And since the executive branch is tasked with enforcing the 14th Amendment, it’s not crazy for the executive branch to interpret its constitutional obligations as it enforces them.

On the other hand, the “major questions doctrine” that this Supreme Court has thankfully been applying to disputes means major changes in federal policy should be decided by the legislature, not the executive or judicial branches. It wouldn’t be a surprise for the Court to conclude that this applies to the interpretation and application of the 14th Amendment.

The Court can, and probably will, limit itself to the procedural issue, since that’s the only question the Court must address in this case. The Court often decides only the minimally necessary questions posed to it.

So, the Court probably won’t choose to settle the question of birthright citizenship, though it could. This would leave the debate open, in theory to be settled by Congress or in a future Supreme Court decision.

The best solution is a clarifying amendment to the Constitution. No one thinks it was the intention of the 14th Amendment to provide citizenship to birth tourists, who cross the border for no other purpose than to bestow U.S. citizenship on their newborn. We know this happens, and it isn’t just illegals crossing the southern border—it’s also wealthy couples from South America, Europe and Asia who return home with trinkets from Disney World and citizenship for their newborn.

IPI will be proposing a clarifying amendment on birthright citizenship as part of our Renewing America 250 set of proposed constitutional amendments later this year. In our view, it’s long past time to update elements in our system left over from the horse and buggy days when it took weeks for Congress to convene, and to deal with current problems not previously anticipated, including birthright citizenship.

This week courts have given us two different and contradictory verdicts about intermediary liability.

In a case going all the way back to 2018, Cox Communications, the cable and broadband company, was accused of failing to live up to its legal obligation to limit music piracy.

To simplify, Cox had an obligation to cancel the accounts of users who had been warned multiple times about engaging in music piracy, but Cox did not. Cox of course had a financial interest in not cancelling users accounts.

So Cox was sued by the major music labels, and the labels won in lower courts. But this week the Supreme Court continued its skepticism of intermediary liability by finding that Cox was not liable, because Cox did not “actively encourage infringement.”

According to the New York Times, “in its opinion released on Wednesday, the court said a company was not liable for “merely providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights.”

Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas said a provider like Cox was liable “only if it intended that the provided service be used for infringement” and if it, for instance, “actively encourages infringement.”

So, an intermediary has to intend for something to happen, and actively encourage that thing to happen, in order to incur liability.

The Court’s unanimous 9-0 decision is of course definitive, even if it seems to fly in the face of some provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA).

At IPI, we’ve never been comfortable with intermediary liability, even though we’re also uncomfortable with copyright piracy.

But that leads us to two other cases this week, where in Los Angeles on Wednesday, a jury decided in favor of a plaintiff who had claimed that Meta and YouTube hooked her with addictive features — a verdict validating a novel legal strategy holding the companies accountable for personal injury. And a day earlier in New Mexico, a jury found Meta liable for failing to safeguard users of its apps from child predators.

So, let’s get this straight: Intermediaries are not liable for their users’ illegal activity unless they intend it and actively encourage it, but they are liable for harm to their users, including self-harm, even if they don’t intend it and don’t actively encourage it.

Now, of course the details of the cases are different, and details matter.

Still, the Supreme Court is not a fan of intermediary liability, and that’s a good thing. Which means if Meta and Google appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, there is a reasonable chance that they will succeed.

The political furor of the moment is over the SAVE Act, or the “Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act.”

Based on that title, you would think that the bill is about voting.

And it started out that way, with a voter ID requirement for federal elections.

Voter ID is an 80-20 issue. Republicans, who have been championing voter ID for two decades, have won the argument.

So, Republicans should bank the easy win, pass the bill and move on, right? Well, no.

Winning policy arguments, solving problems and preserving those solutions in law is no longer what Congress does. You must fight. So, they threw in requirements that voters prove citizenship when they register to vote.

Now, of course only citizens should be permitted to vote. But voter ID solves 99% of that problem. Regardless, the proof of citizenship requirement gives us more to fight over, even though it loses some votes in both the House and Senate, and it advances the nationalization of elections.

Then President Trump insisted that Republicans eliminate vote by mail, which many states have long implemented, and which almost certainly violates state power over time, place and manner of elections.

But maybe, just maybe, even that bill might still pass.

Then Republicans throw transgender culture war issues into what started as a voter ID bill. Elements that are utterly non-germane to the bill, and that ensure that the bill is impossible to pass.

Now, of course men shouldn’t be allowed to compete in women’s sports. But what does that have to do with elections? Is it worth losing voter ID?

But it gets everyone kung fu fighting online, and it gets people ranting on cable shows.

The final genius move was insisting that the Republic is at stake if the SAVE Act doesn’t pass.

The truth is that the SAVE Act contains elements that would be nice to have, but none of which are critical to the survival of the Republic.

And now the Republican grassroots are furious that Republicans can’t pass the SAVE Act. Do they want men in women’s sports? Do they want illegals voting?

But the votes aren’t there, and the votes won’t be there, because the SAVE Act was designed to not pass. To prolong the fight, not solve the problem.

Our representatives no longer want to solve problems through legislation. They want to prolong problems and prolong frustration, because their brands are built on voter frustration.

The Founders designed a system where our representatives would come to the Capitol, debate and discuss issues, compromise with each other to solve problems, and then go home. That system increasingly looks like a dream.

When claims are made that one of the most widely used medications during pregnancy may cause autism, the public understandably pays attention. Scientists, healthcare professionals, and even judges, however, must ask: What does the evidence actually show?

That question is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York.

The court is reviewing whether to revive more than 500 lawsuits brought by parents alleging that prenatal acetaminophen exposure caused their children’s autism or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

In 2023, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote correctly excluded key expert testimony supporting those claims, concluding that they failed to meet the reliability requirements under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

Rule 702 requires judges to ensure that expert testimony presented to juries is grounded in sufficient data, reliable methodology, and a sound application of those methods to the facts of the case. In other words, courts must act as gatekeepers to prevent speculative or methodologically unsound scientific claims from being treated as fact.

Now, plaintiffs are asking the appellate court to reverse that ruling.

The Second Circuit’s decision will test judges’ authority to prevent questionable scientific claims from reaching a jury before they satisfy established reliability standards.

This judicial gatekeeping role is essential. When expert opinions are admitted without rigorous scrutiny, litigation can amplify assumptions that have yet to meet the standards of the broader scientific community.

One reason the plaintiffs’ expert testimony was dismissed is the issue of confounding variables. Neurodevelopmental conditions such as autism and ADHD have strong genetic components. Disentangling whether a condition stems from a medication exposure or from shared familial and hereditary factors is extraordinarily complex.

None of this means the question should not continue to be studied. But when the vast majority of high-quality studies find no causation between prenatal acetaminophen use and neurodevelopmental conditions, careful gatekeeping must be exercised.

This case’s potential impact on public health makes gatekeeping even more important.

Acetaminophen is one of the most widely used medications in the world and remains the only generally recommended pain and fever reliever during pregnancy when used as directed. That guidance reflects decades of regulatory review and clinical experience.

Several studies have reported an increased likelihood of birth defects and other adverse outcomes from untreated maternal fever. Physicians routinely advise pregnant patients to treat significant fevers promptly because unmanaged fever itself can pose risks to fetal development.

If pregnant women avoid acetaminophen based on unproven claims, they may turn to alternatives such as ibuprofen or aspirin, which carry known risks later in pregnancy, including potential complications affecting fetal kidney development.

By upholding the gatekeeping responsibility of judges under Rule 702, the Second Circuit can reaffirm that scientific claims must meet established thresholds before being presented as reliable proof in court.

Want evidence that elections matter? Witness the change at our southern border.

Seldom have we seen such a rapid and dramatic improvement because of a change in administrations. 

After years of chaos, the border is secure. Let that reverberate a bit in your mind before we continue.

The border is secure because President Trump made it a priority, appointed people who shared his mission, and ignored the complaints of the Left. Donald Trump has been in office for less than a year, and in that time the border has gone from porous to secure.

You don’t hear much lately in the media about the border, and everyone thinks the problem is solved. But that’s a trap.

Because the immigration issue isn’t solved. Not even a little bit.

For years—decades even—we have heard:

• “There can’t be a deal on immigration until the border is secure!” 
• “We can’t deal with the Dreamers until the border is secure!”
• “I don’t want to hear about comprehensive immigration reform until the border is secure.”

Well, the border is secure. And 2026 could be the year of comprehensive immigration reform.

President Trump has forcibly established the first condition for a deal, and he wants to be remembered as a dealmaker. The border is secure, and Congress is evenly divided. The conditions are perfect for a bipartisan deal on immigration that requires significant compromise (that means buy-in) by both parties.

• We need an immigration system that encourages the best of the world to come to the United States.
• We need an immigration system that protects us from those who will not or cannot assimilate.
• We need an immigration system that provides an abundant source of human capital.
• We need an immigration system that allows us to know who is here, when they arrived, and when they left.
• We need an immigration system that allows foreign workers to supply labor in areas where the current and future work force is insufficient.
• We need an immigration system that doesn’t brutalize those who have grown up in this country and know no other culture.
• We need an immigration system that prevents immigrants from taking advantage of our safety nets and our generosity.

In 2016, IPI published a paper with suggestions on how to proceed with a solution to the immigration challenge. It was posited on border security.

And now the border is secure. But the job is not done. Now is the time for the “Art of the Deal” Trump to step up to the plate. It will probably require sidelining advisor Stephen Miller, but you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggheads.

Conservatism begins not with a snarl or with a conspiracy theory but with a “thank you.” Conservatism is a posture of the soul: a recognition that we are heirs to a noble inheritance of culture, of institutions, and of morality and ethics. Incredible work, thought and sacrifice by preceding generations has bestowed upon us the richness of Western civilization, of classical liberalism, of the Enlightenment, and of the Judeo-Christian worldview.

In a recent IPI PolicyByte, I referenced the conservative impulse as “gratitude and respect toward those who went before us,” which causes us to pause before making or embracing change. Conservatives aren’t opposed to change per se, but rather insist that we recognize the value of what we have before we tear it down in hopes that something better will emerge.

Progressives reject the past, whereas conservatives appreciate and seek to understand the past, however flawed. The progressive project distinctly substitutes disdain for gratitude, which may explain why so many progressives are so personally unappealing and repugnant.

This is something that the populist right has in common with progressives. They disdain political leaders such as Mitch McConnell and have no gratitude for, for instance, his dogged efforts to place conservative judges on the Supreme Court and on lower courts. They disdain Texas Sen. John Cornyn and ignore his similar efforts. Conservatives, by contrast, can appreciate McConnell’s significant policy accomplishments while also disagreeing with some of his actions and positions.

Again, to Chesterton’s Fence. In his parable, a “modern reformer” comes across a fence, and says “I don’t see the use of this; let’s clear it away.” To which Chesterton replies, the fence obviously did not pop up there naturally, on its own. It was obviously built by intelligent people who must have had some reason for building it. So before tearing it down, let’s investigate why it was built in the first place.

That gratitude is not nostalgia for nostalgia’s sake. It’s realism about the fragility of civilization, and of republics. The progressive temperament assumes if we tear down the old stuff, something better will automatically appear. But conservatives know the jungle grows back. The institutions we inherit—family, markets, churches, constitutional limits—were not assumed. They were paid for in “blood and brains and science and thought and experience,” and we ought to feel a kind of reverent indebtedness for them. 

Richard Weaver called this virtue piety, “a discipline of the will through respect,” acknowledging “things larger than the ego.” That’s another way of saying gratitude: the humble admission that I didn’t make the world, I didn’t found the republic, and I don’t get to rewrite human nature on a whim. When conservatives defend limits, they’re not being killjoys; they’re being thankful stewards of an inheritance that we can steward or ruin.

In William F. Buckley’s little book Gratitude, he presses the same point: the blessings of liberty create obligations of love and service, not to a utopian state, but to the country and culture that formed us. Russell Kirk liked to remind us of “the unbought grace of life”—the gifts we didn’t earn but must honor. If you’re grateful for this grace, you don’t embrace radicalism. You insist that government stay in its constitutional lane so families, communities, and free people can do what only they can do.

Gratitude is the heart of conservatism. It’s the moral engine behind our suspicion of Big Government, our love of ordered liberty, and our acceptance and embrace of progress but our insistence that it must say “thank you.”

It isn’t news that Democrats want to eliminate the filibuster at times when they have a slim but insufficient Senate majority, but recently President Trump, too, has voiced frustration with the obstacle of the Senate filibuster. Is it time to do away with the filibuster?

The filibuster is one of several elements that distinguish the Senate from the House, so to answer that question, we need to think about why the Senate exists in the first place.

The Senate is a result of the Great Compromise—the agreement that made it possible to adopt the Constitution by balancing the demands of large and small states with a bicameral Congress. The House of Representatives, based on population, would favor larger states and thus majorities, while the Senate, with states represented equally, would favor smaller states and thus minorities. The House would be responsive to the short-term passions of the people, while the Senate would take a cooler approach from a different perspective. It’s a system designed to make it harder, not easier, to make major changes, and thus reinforces stability.

But while the Senate was designed to be different from the House, the Senate filibuster was not originally part of that distinction. In fact, the Senate filibuster is a historical accident. It’s not in the Constitution, and it’s not in the original rules of the Senate. It wasn’t until 1837 that senators realized that an 1806 rule change made endless debate possible.

In other words, defenders of the filibuster can’t argue that it is an element of the Founder’s design.

However, the Founders’ design for the Senate WAS for it to be different from the House, and that design was dramatically compromised by the 17^th Amendment, which made the Senate directly elected by the population rather than by state legislatures.

Doing away with the filibuster would make the Senate a simple majority body, approaching redundancy with the House because of the 17^th Amendment. That, of course, is the intent of those clamoring to kill the filibuster, because they want to abandon the Founder’s anti-majoritarian design and move toward ever greater populism.

Such a move would only intensify political polarization and anger, because populism without anti-majoritarian safeguards will result in more frequent and more severe pendulum swings in national policy. And a conservative Supreme Court won’t step in and save us from that.

Here’s a suggestion that might appease filibuster haters while improving the Senate: How about we repeal the 17^thAmendment along with the filibuster? Yes, I know it’s likely a pipe dream, but as a thought experiment, I would trade the historical accident of the filibuster for a return to the Founders’ bicameral design any day.

Wednesday, November 5, the Supreme Court will hear one of the most important cases involving limited government in our lifetimes. Under the boring name Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, this is the case about whether a president has authority under the Constitution or statute to impose tariffs in the way the Trump administration has.

For social conservatives, the Dobbs case, overturning Roe v. Wade and restoring to states the power to regulate abortion, was the whole ball of wax. But for economic conservatives, and for those who believe in constitutional limits on executive power, Learning Resources is right up there with Dobbs.

Constitutionally, it always seemed clear that Roe was an overreach by the Supreme Court. Similarly, Trump’s assertion of authority to impose tariffs on various whims seems a clear overreach by the Executive Branch, and one without the weight of precedent.

I was surprised that the Supreme Court worked up the gumption (not a technical legal term) to overturn Roe, because of stare decisis and reliance interests. But I’ll be more surprised if the Court doesn’t significantly curtail presidential use of so-called economic emergencies to impose tariffs.

In fact, as George Will writes, the justices may have to suppress a giggle or two at the administration’s arguments. For instance, the administration argues that emergency powers are justified by persistent trade deficits. But how can something that’s been true for 50 years be an emergency?

And of course, there is that small matter that the statute being used to justify Trump’s tariffs never uses the word “tariff.” That’s likely because the authors of the legislation knew the Constitution reserves tax and revenue authority to Congress.

Those are just examples of how conservative textualists on the Court would seem to have no option other than to overturn the asserted tariff authority. But judicial conservatives also champion originalism or original intent as a principle of constitutional interpretation.

Can anyone assert with a straight face that those who wrote the Constitution, just a few years removed from an armed rebellion against an authoritarian king, intended for the American president to be able to slap tariffs on trading partners on a whim? For whatever reasons and for whatever amounts he chose? Of course not.

The entire constitutional design of our political system is a series of limitations on federal power, with a system of checks and balances to ensure that the limitations are observed and enforced. The only reason Congress hasn’t already acted to rein in this and other overreaches by President Trump is that congressional Republicans have apparently entered into an informal compact to collectively look the other way and violate their oaths of office.

Sadly, with Congress having thus tapped out, it falls to Trump-appointed justices to enforce a basic constitutional limitation on his power. Let’s hope they still have the gumption.

The Supreme Court began its new term this week, and it’s going to be an eventful one. Buckle up.

The Trump administration is facing more than 400 lawsuits from states, cities, individuals and businesses — mostly regarding charges that the administration has exceeded its constitutional and statutory authority in areas such as tariffs, immigration, hiring and firing of federal agency personnel, the independence of the Federal Reserve Bank, spending rescissions and impoundments, and birthright citizenship.

Whew.

For those who are not close watchers of the court — and that’s most of us — it’s important to remember that most of the court’s actions related to the Trump administration so far have come from the “emergency docket,” and such actions are temporary. They don’t deal with the substantive questions — they simply allow the administration to continue a policy or force it to suspend a policy until the court has a chance to rule on the substantive and constitutional issues. None of the Supreme Court’s actions for or against the Trump administration so far have been permanent.

That all happens now.

You would be forgiven for thinking some of these cases had already been decided, because partisans on these issues often seize on one of these temporary rulings and declare on social media “HUGE VICTORY FOR TRUMP!” or “SCOTUS SLAPS DOWN TRUMP!” when, in fact, all that has happened is a temporary, procedural ruling. Social media is not exactly the place to find reasoned and accurate analysis, if you haven’t already noticed.

You should not expect that just because a judge has been appointed by Trump, that judge is going to rule in his favor. That’s not how it works. In fact, the majority of court rulings against the Trump administration have come from judges appointed by Trump and other Republicans. Being elected president doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want to do. The power of the president is limited by the Constitution, as it does for all of the federal government.

This past weekend, White House adviser Stephen Miller took to social media to decry a supposed “left-wing legal insurrection led by Democrat judges” because a federal judge ruled against the Trump administration. But the judge in question, Karen Immergut, was appointed by Trump in 2018.

To his great credit, Donald Trump has appointed many highly qualified judges — and very good judges follow the law, the Constitution and the limits of legislation.

How will Stephen Miller react if the Supreme Court throws out the bulk of Trump’s tariffs? If the court rejects the challenge to birthright citizenship?

The Trump administration will win some and lose some. When they lose, it won’t be a “judicial insurrection.” Republicans should be very careful about joining Democrats in undermining faith in the judicial system. And Stephen Miller probably needs to start taking blood pressure medication.

Government shutdowns aren’t really a big deal anymore, despite all the media attention. We’ve been doing this for 30 years. If you work for the federal government, you know every couple of years this is going to happen, and your pay will be delayed. So, you plan for it as a cost of being a government employee.

My favorite thing about shutdowns is how little they affect those of us who live our lives far from government. The sun still comes up, hot water still comes out of the shower, and the food in the freezer is still frozen. Most of us don’t need government nearly as much as government thinks we do.

But the shutdown is a symptom of something deeper: Congress no longer functions. We are operating as if we have only two branches of government. Presidents attempt to rule by a flurry of decrees and orders, courts eventually strike most of them down, and Congress remains catatonic.

Congress is forced from its slumber only by a funding deadline, because that's one of the few responsibilities Congress cannot dodge. And witness how well they perform that responsibility.

Pardon voters who are left with the impression that every four years we elect an all-powerful ruler to give us what we want and to punish our enemies. That’s not the design of our system, but it’s how we increasingly talk and vote.

Here’s the problem: each party has decided it cannot compromise with the “evildoers” in the other party. So both fighters retreat to their corners. Which is odd, since most ran for Congress promising to “fight.” Apparently, “fight” means appearing on cable TV.

Maybe instead of promising to fight, legislators should commit to doing what the system requires of them: work with opponents, build consensus, and solve problems. The people who disagree with you probably aren’t evil, and even if some are, they are still entitled to representation.

Compromise is not a dirty word in politics—it is the essence of politics. Our system was designed so Americans could resolve disagreements without resorting to fighting. Ronald Reagan advanced his agenda through a Democrat-controlled Congress. It required compromise, but it changed the world for the better.

If a conservative icon could work with his opponents, surely today’s leaders can do the same. Otherwise—welcome to the shutdown, and if we keep going down this road, welcome to the jungle.

Top political news is the move by the Texas Legislature to redraw its congressional districts outside of the normal ten-year cycle. Texas’ efforts are clearly political in nature; the Republican-controlled legislature intends to increase the number of Republican seats while diminishing the number of Democrat seats.

Texas state legislators of the Democrat persuasion have responded with truancy, thus denying a quorum for the Texas House and causing much drama and entertainment for political types.

How should we think about all this?

The Constitution mandates proportional representation in the House of Representatives, and other laws freeze House membership at 435 and require that states review and adjust proportional representation after each decennial census. But no federal law prevents a state from redistricting more frequently as it might see fit.

While the current clamor is about Texas manipulating its districts to maintain a Republican advantage in Congress, and blue states threatening to respond, there’s an important reality behind the Texas effort that no one is talking about.

Since the April 2020 Census, the population of Texas has grown by more than 2.15 million people (as of July 2024.) That’s a 7.5 percent increase in population, and that estimate is over a year old. Since the Texas population grew by more than half a million people from 2023 to 2024, it’s possible that the current Texas population has increased by 2.75 million since the last census. Based on current congressional district populations, that’s nearly four additional congressional seats that Texas is entitled to now. And we’re only halfway to the 2030 census. In 2030, could Texas gain 7 new congressional seats? Easily.

Yes, congressional seats are only reallocated among the states at the decennial census. But since the Texas population currently justifies several more congressional seats, is it really all that outrageous for Texas to be redistricting now? Hardly.

Thanks to the wisdom of the Founders and their federal design, each state can pursue its own policies within the limits of the Constitution. Laboratories of democracy and all. As a result, many who value low taxes, less regulation, and more economic opportunity are relocating to states that prioritize these policies, resulting in a net migration from blue states to red states. A brand new website project run by our friends at Unleash Prosperity is documenting this Big Sort, and it’s worth a look.

So long as Democrat-run cities and states pursue policies that punish work, investment, family creation and business formation, they had better get used to losing on redistricting.

Democrats often criticize the Senate for not reflecting proportional representation. But as they continue to lose at the proportional representation game, they may develop a newfound appreciation for the Senate.

First, go back and read that title. How amazing is that?

Six months into a new administration, how much has changed! In fact, in the first 100 days of the Trump administration, daily border encounters dropped by 93 percent. U.S. Customs and Border Protection say that they have total functional control of the border, meaning the border is closed to illegal crossings.

It’s kind of amazing. For the previous four years, the Biden administration had utterly (and some think purposely) failed to limit illegal border crossing, while claiming that the border was secure. Which prompted mocking responses like "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Too late, the Biden administration realized the political potency of disorder at the border, the election went to Trump, and the Trump administration has delivered. 

Further, as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill, funds have been appropriated to fund a dramatic increase in border agents, as well as to build more sections of the border wall.

For at least a decade, conservatives have said “we can’t do anything about immigration reform, we won’t even entertain discussions about immigration reform, until the border is secure.”

Well.

Whatever else one might think about President Trump, he does not follow his base—his base follows him, and Trump has telegraphed an openness to common sense on immigration. In his first term, Trump expressed a desire to solve the problem of the “dreamers”—children who were brought to this country illegally, and who have grown up knowing nothing but America, and consider themselves Americans.

And, only weeks ago, Trump acknowledged the harmful impact on U.S. agriculture and other industries  from deporting immigrant laborers.

For someone who prides himself on his deal-making skills, what could be bigger than solving the ultimate political problem--a solution to our immigration mess? Border security was the necessary foundation, and that foundation has finally been laid.

We’ve tried to help. Our 2016 paper proposed a number of reforms, including a biometric entry and exit system, a Guest Worker Payroll Tax, converting H-1B visas to an auction system, and self-reporting with a fine that would grant legal status to those here illegally with clean criminal records. All of which assume that the border has first been secured.

It has.

Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-FL) has introduced the Dignity Act, which resembles one of IPI’s proposals. It has twenty bi-partisan sponsors. It’s not comprehensive, but it’s a good proposal.

The Knee Jerk Club has already labelled it as “amnesty.” But I’m betting President Trump thinks it’s reasonable. 

The border is secure. Now, let’s fix our broken immigration system once and for all.

A Big Mac costs more in San Francisco than it does in Baton Rouge. And it costs more in Switzerland, but less in Mexico. 

Some prices vary from moment to moment. Your Uber ride could cost three different prices within the same hour, depending on demand. And of course, on any given flight passengers on the same flight may have paid a dozen different prices, depending on when they purchased.

Even a pint of strawberries might have different prices at the same grocery store, depending on the week or even the day that you shop.

This is called differential pricing, or dynamic pricing, and it’s how markets work to match customers with products and services based on supply and demand.

But when government steps in and tries to control pricing, market mechanisms get disrupted, supply and demand is set aside, both consumers and producers are harmed.

Americans generally pay more for name-brand prescription drugs (though NOT for generics) than those in other countries, but only partially because of differential pricing. It’s mostly because other governments exert price controls on drugs. The problem is not that Americans pay too much; it’s that other countries pay too little. They distort their prices, which causes distortions in our prices.

The solution to this is to insist that foreign countries bear more of their share of drug prices, and this can only be done through trade agreements. But of course, these days we’re into blowing up trade agreements, not strengthening them.

But instead of insisting that other countries pay a fair price for drugs, the Trump administration is advocating the opposite—importing foreign price controls to the U.S. The Trump administration doesn’t like importing underwear from Vietnam but loves the idea of importing Vietnam’s price controls on pharmaceuticals.

Specifically, the Trump administration is pushing Congress to include in its budget reconciliation package a provision that would limit the Medicaid reimbursement price to what other countries pay. They’re calling this MFN, or “Most Favored Nation” pricing, which is ironic, since the Trump administration decries the extension of Most Favored Nation status to China. You would think the acronym would be toxic.

Drug manufacturers already lose money due to the Medicaid reimbursement formula, but importing foreign price controls would squeeze them even further. In the current populist moment, putting the squeeze on drug manufacturers might feel good, and Congress might save a little money, but there are unseen costs.

A critical concept in market economics is “the seen versus the unseen.” It’s easy to see the supposed benefits of price controls, but they are short-term, and ignore the unseen impact of reduced investment, less innovation, and delayed or even forgone treatments and cures.

Implementing MFN for Medicaid drug reimbursement would be a long-term structural disaster in exchange for perceived short-term benefits. There are better ways to address our entitlements crisis, and Congress should pursue them.

You’ve probably taken one of those political quizzes where you answer a series of questions about your political opinions, and then the quiz places you somewhere on a political scale or grid.

Here’s the Pew Quiz.  This one is short and fun. This one has 70 questions but it’s pretty interesting. This one is very detailed but perhaps too granular. Finally, this is the New York Time’s “If America Had Six Political Parties” quiz (I ended up in the Growth & Opportunity Party, which was no surprise to me).

But it’s the Horseshoe Theory that seems to dominate our politics today.

The Horseshoe Theory of Politics observes that the extremes of left and right end up meeting, and having more in common than they might have thought. And today we’ve gone full horseshoe.

The populist right is open to higher taxes on the wealthy instead of rewarding wealth creation, demonizes big corporations instead of recognizing them as a form of innovation and production at scale, subordinates Constitutional protections to the “will of the people,” cozies up to labor unions instead of championing right to work, uses government power to reward friends and punish enemies, and places absolute trust in an elected leader instead of maintaining limits on power.

The progressive left thinks the same thing.

The reason both political extremes ending up having much in common is that they are both forms of radicalism. In fact, it’s common today for the populist right to say things like “We should use the tools leftists learned from Saul Alinsky in ‘Rules for Radicals,’” or “If they aren’t going to play by the rules, neither should we.”

Radicalism simply wants its desired outcome and sees norms and constitutional protections as obstacles to be overcome. Radicals advocate things like abolishing the Electoral College, packing the Supreme Court, making the Senate proportionately representative, and just generally using government power to impose their preferences on everyone else.

Conservatism embraces constitutional limitations and norms as guardrails that allow for social change while preventing tyranny. Respecting the Constitution protects everyone, even when we don’t get our preferred outcome.

Now, some on the right today have decided that radicalism is necessary. Anything goes to “own the libs” and the entrenched elites must be defeated by any means necessary.

Fine. But if that’s your position, own it. You’re a right radical, not a conservative. The Horseshoe Theory has you. And you’ve got more in common with Bernie Sanders, AOC, and Elizabeth Warren than you do with Ronald Reagan.

Another “lame duck” political season is upon us.
 
This is the point where some try to shoehorn their pet bill into any available vehicle, while others are doing everything they can to stave off the passage of a bill they dread. But, in fact, usually nothing happens in a lame duck session except absolutely necessary omnibus funding bills or tax extenders, because legislators are more than ready to move on from current frustrations and try again next January.
 
This lame duck, however, there is a critical need to pass a fix to Medicare’s physician reimbursement system, since an automatic cut in payments to physicians takes effect January 1^st.
 
You might not have much sympathy for doctors taking a pay cut. But it’s Medicare patients, and the Medicare system itself, that face disaster if the automatic cuts aren’t addressed.
 
Doctors across the country are still recoiling from the 2024 round of Medicare physician pay cuts. As a result, many physician practices—particularly smaller, independent ones operating in rural and other underserved areas— face insurmountable financial challenges that make it more and more difficult to keep their doors open.

Problems within the Medicare physician payment system are not new. However, they have gotten worse in recent years as the Baby Boomers age. Policymakers must get to work to address longstanding issues that threaten to destabilize Medicare.
 
Unlike all other Medicare provider types, including hospitals, hospices, and skilled nursing centers, physicians are the only ones who do not receive annual, inflation-based Medicare payment updates. As a result, many independent physicians and smaller practices feel they have little choice but to limit the number of Medicare patients they serve, or to stop seeing Medicare patients altogether.
 
Long term, Congress needs to pass long-term reform of the Medicare Physician Fee System (MPFS) to help stabilize the system. But right now, in the next five weeks, Congress can begin the process by preventing a further automatic cut in MPFS payments on January 1^st.
 
Medicare is a flawed program, and IPI has lots of ideas on how to fix the system. But if we do nothing, pressure will build to replace it with Medicare for All or a similar socialized health care scheme. A growing number of seniors will need care in the future as Americans live longer and the Baby Boomer Generation continues to age. Lawmakers need to protect physician practices, and increase patient access, and help keep our entire healthcare system strong. Instead of ceding the issue to Big Government progressives who call for socialized medicine, our leaders in Washington must fix the broken MPFS to strengthen Medicare for years to come.