by Michael Crow, Wall Street Journal, June 20, 2025 (electronic version)
Excerpts:
The recent actions taken by the administration to revoke visas from international students over minor infractions—think traffic tickets—and the invasive examination of their social media accounts signal a clear message: foreign students are no longer welcome on these shores.
And:
Joaquin Duato, CEO of Johnson & Johnson, and Ramon Laguarta, CEO of PepsiCo, both rose from their beginnings as student immigrants, proudly wearing the badge of ASU’s Thunderbird School of Global Management. Notable figures like Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Sergey Brin (one of the co-founders of Google), Satya Nadella (CEO of Microsoft), and Indra Nooyi (former CEO of PepsiCo) illustrate the invaluable contributions of immigrant founders to the U.S. economy.
These individuals are not mere statistics; they represent the driving force behind U.S. economic growth and innovation. An impressive 50% of all U.S. startups boasting valuations of over $1 billion have at least one immigrant founder, many of whom began their journeys as students. The economic return from these talents? Trillions of dollars, a testament to the value of diversity in entrepreneurship.
by Veronique de Rugy, Reason, June 19, 2025.
Excerpts:
Regulating based on emotional responses is a hazardous approach to managing the intricate and ever-evolving U.S. economy—unless, of course, one prefers the comparatively constrained freedom that characterizes Europe. In this instance, the government acknowledges that it lacks substantive evidence to support the claim that two-person crews are inherently safer than their one-person counterparts. Instead, the agency requests that the court accept what it whimsically refers to as a “common-sense product of reasoned decision-making.”
And:
The government’s own figures fail to substantiate the idea that enforcing two-person crews would enhance safety. My former colleague, Patrick McLaughlin, has demonstrated that there is no credible, conclusive data indicating that one-person crews have inferior safety records compared to two-person teams. Numerous smaller U.S. railroads have successfully operated with single-person crews for years, as do the Amtrak trains ferrying Washington’s elite along the East Coast. Additionally, ample evidence from Europe and other nations shows that single crew members can operate safely.
by Joe Lancaster, Reason, June 19, 2025.
Excerpts:
This week, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) unveiled new guidelines regarding “facility visit and engagement protocol for Members of Congress and staff.”
The directive specifies, “ICE detention locations and Field Offices are secure facilities. As such, all visitors must comply with [identity] verification and security screening requirements prior to entry.” It further requests that any visit to an ICE facility be scheduled with a notice period of at least 72 hours.
Ironically, members of Congress are legally permitted to visit ICE detention facilities without prior notice. This attempt by ICE to impose restrictions undermines the constitutional system of checks and balances.
And:
This behavior is not atypical for the agency: Earlier this year, ICE agents denied access to an immigration court for Reason’s C.J. Ciaramella at a federal detention facility in Miami, blatantly disregarding both federal law and the guidelines posted on the agency’s own website. (ICE later admitted the facility was “open daily to the public.”)
by David Friedman, David Friedman’s Substack, June 21, 2025.
Excerpt:
In her talk, McArdle defended a strategy she views as successful—trading libertarian support for minor victories, which she argues is the most that can be expected in exchange. While this is a defensible approach, I couldn’t help but notice two costs that she notably omitted.
The first cost pertains to the libertarian movement’s reputation. The Libertarian Party has long touted itself as “The Party of Principle,” and much of its appeal stems from its consistent advocacy for liberty across a spectrum of issues, from drug laws to immigration. If the party aligns too closely with Trump, as anyone who listened to McArdle’s talk would observe, it risks sharing the blame for his actions—many of which diverge significantly from libertarian principles. This association could deter potential members, especially those critical of Trump’s policies, diminishing the party’s ability to attract a diverse membership.
The second cost relates to the impact of collaborating with Trump or any non-libertarian movement on libertarian doctrine itself. Libertarians who ally with Trump may feel pressured to downplay the discrepancies between his views and theirs, crafting justifications for policies that contradict their core beliefs to avoid confrontation. This effect could be magnified as Trump supporters join the movement, while libertarians with strong reservations about Trump’s policies depart. Over time, this could lead to a “libertarian” party, or even a “libertarian” movement, that is fundamentally unrecognizable from true libertarianism.
