by David J. Bier, Cato at Liberty, April 15, 2025.
Excerpt:
Recently, I encountered a rather alarming exchange with a green card holder—a legal permanent resident of the United States. He expressed uncertainty about the prudence of international travel as someone who has publicly critiqued President Trump and Israel. His concern was whether he should temper his criticism or erase previous comments from his social media accounts before embarking on a trip.
In an ideal free society, the response would be unequivocal: “Speak your mind, criticize as you wish, and travel without fear of reprisal, for the government cannot penalize you for your words.” However, until the Supreme Court reiterates that the First Amendment offers protections against deportation for noncitizens based on their speech—and until President Trump adheres to the Supreme Court’s directives—we must acknowledge that freedom is in short supply.
The Trump administration has taken the unprecedented step of revoking green cards and visas based solely on individuals’ expressions. People are being specifically targeted for their “beliefs, statements, or associations” that, while entirely lawful in the U.S., Secretary of State Marco Rubio has labeled “contrary to U.S. foreign policy.” Even the act of writing an op-ed that critiques a foreign government’s policies can now result in visa cancellations. Furthermore, the administration is examining electronic devices at borders for signs of “adverse” viewpoints.
DRH note: While this post raises serious concerns, I find the title somewhat overstated. David Bier attempts to validate the title by arguing that free speech inherently includes the right to hear diverse opinions, but I believe this interpretation is a bit of a leap.
He makes a stronger case with the following observation:
It is hardly surprising that the Trump administration is undermining free speech rights for U.S. citizens in various ways, including threatening arrests of individuals who inform noncitizens of their legal rights, filing lawsuits against media outlets, attacking law firms that represent unpopular clients, revoking contracts in states where governors criticize Trump, threatening sanctions against media for negative coverage, banning certain media from White House events, and penalizing federal contractors for using the words “diversity, equity, or inclusion.”
Academia and Government
By Steven Landsburg, The Big Questions, April 16, 2025.
Excerpt:
For years, university administrators have shown a remarkable ability to manipulate university resources to advance their personal political and social agendas. This manipulation has infiltrated everything from hiring practices to course offerings and even the funding and composition of athletic teams. Over time, much of this agenda has been inscribed in federal mandates.
When these agendas have sparked controversy or dissent, administrators have often sidestepped defending their policies on merit, instead leaning on federal mandates as a shield. “We’re powerless to change; federal funding is at stake.” This conveniently overlooks the possibility of challenging intrusive policies with reasoned debate.
Now, surprisingly, as federal mandates begin to misalign with their personal agendas, institutions like Harvard are suddenly discovering their backbone.
I find myself conflicted about this development. On one hand, it is commendable for universities to resist governmental overreach in how they operate. On the other hand, selective resistance raises questions. Are they merely collaborating with the government when it serves their interests and rebelling only when the government’s stance diverges from their own? Harvard should have taken a stand long ago, yet here they are, belatedly fighting back. Will their newfound assertiveness be temporary, dictated by the political climate? And if so, is a sporadic backbone preferable to none at all? I remain uncertain.
by Marina Nitze, Reason, April 16, 2025.
Excerpt:
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), any government agency wishing to create or update an “information collection”—usually a form, but also encompassing user logins, customer surveys, and user research—must first seek approval from the central Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).
This approval process involves filling out forms about the form (yes, you read that right), which require multiple layers of internal agency approvals before being sent to a desk officer. The desk officer’s responsibility is to forward this package to OIRA, a role that would likely confuse the Bobs from Office Space. Often, desk officers outsource this task and choose to submit a massive package annually for efficiency; a recent submission by the Forest Service included a staggering 151 forms.
Once OIRA receives the package, it eventually publishes it in the government’s daily newspaper, the Federal Register—a staple of morning routines across the nation. The proposal is then made available for public comment for a period of 60 days. Afterward, the originating agency must compile feedback, although they’re under no obligation to act on it. OIRA reviews this feedback, and whether changes are made or not, the proposal is reposted for an additional 30 days. After another round of OIRA review, approval may be granted, a process that can stretch on for years.
by Timothy Taylor, Conversable Economist, April 17, 2025.
Excerpt:
The well-being of a nation’s population extends far beyond mere economic indicators. A notable study by Kevin Murphy and Robert Topel in 2006 sought to quantify the economic benefits to the U.S. population from increased life expectancy and disease reduction over time. Naturally, this undertaking involves assigning dollar values to additional years of life—an always contentious issue. The findings, however, were staggering.
Their research estimated that the economic gains from declining mortality rates in the U.S. throughout the twentieth century were valued at over $1.2 million per person for today’s population. Between 1970 and 2000, improvements in life expectancy contributed approximately $3.2 trillion per year to national wealth, with half of these gains attributed to advancements against heart disease alone. Looking ahead, even modest progress against major diseases could yield immense value; for instance, a permanent 1 percent reduction in cancer mortality holds a present value of nearly $500 billion, while a potential cure (if feasible) could be worth a staggering $50 trillion.
In stark contrast, consider Russia, where poor health statistics indicate that the overall welfare of its populace is significantly worse than its economic figures suggest. Nicholas Eberstadt elaborates on this paradox in “The Russian Paradox: So Much Education, So Little Human Capital” (The American Enterprise, April 8, 2025).
by Amanda Morris, SciTechDaily, April 17, 2025.
Excerpt:
Engineers at Northwestern University have developed an ultra-compact pacemaker that is so minuscule it can be injected directly into the body via a syringe.
This device is compatible with hearts of various sizes, making it particularly beneficial for the fragile hearts of newborns suffering from congenital heart defects.
Measuring smaller than a grain of rice, the pacemaker works in conjunction with a lightweight, flexible, wireless wearable that adheres to the patient’s chest. When the wearable detects an irregular heartbeat, it emits brief pulses of light to activate the pacemaker. These light pulses penetrate the skin, breastbone, and muscle tissue to effectively regulate the heart’s rhythm.
