Fifty percent tariffs on a range of imports from Canada are set to take effect on August 19. President Trump announced the tariffs, which would be levied under Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, on July 20 as a means to address discrimination by Canada and its provinces against American exports of dairy products, alcoholic beverages, and motor vehicles. Though the announcement of these duties—given their limited scope and the foreign practices they are aimed at—appeared to amount to a negotiating tactic ahead of bilateral talks with Canada on extending the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), their forthcoming imposition carries significant risks for the future of US trade policy that extend beyond these specific duties. In a worst-case scenario, Section 338 could become the next presidential “tariff button,” wielded much as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) was in 2025 and early 2026, before the Supreme Court’s decision invalidating its use to tax imports. Congress should quickly step in and repeal this outdated statute.

Section 338 authorizes the president to impose tariffs of up to 50 percent on imports from a country that: a) imposes “any unreasonable charge, exaction, regulation, or limitation” on a product from the United States that is not equally enforced on like products from every foreign country, or b) discriminates, through its laws, regulations, and/​or practices against the commerce of the United States and, thereby, places it at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the commerce of any other foreign country. On the latter precondition, the statute’s definition of what may constitute a discriminatory practice is broad, citing “any customs, tonnage, or port duty, fee, charge, exaction, classification, regulation, condition, restriction, or prohibition” as instances thereof. As he has done with previous tariffs imposed through other statutes, President Trump is using the broad language in Section 338 to justify this next round of duties.

Read the rest of this post →

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in education remains a hot topic. Some of the debate involves philosophical issues around the purpose of education and what it means to learn; other elements are far more straightforward. It is a reality that today’s students will encounter AI tools in their education and careers. There are many ways that AI can be an important tool to provide better educational opportunities. But there are also those who express legitimate concerns about the potential for AI “brain rot” or the possibility that students will become dependent on AI tools in ways that will erode their actual learning.

It is possible that both sides of the debate could be right. AI has many different applications and isn’t simply good or bad. But the reality of AI’s benefits should make us cautious of calls to ban such technology, either from classrooms or more generally.

As students head back to school, many teachers, parents, and policymakers may be asking questions about whether they want AI in the classroom. This piece will focus on two key elements: the benefits of AI in classrooms and the importance of that use being decided in ways that support students as individuals. Decisions about the appropriate role of AI in education are likely as unique as every classroom.

Read the rest of this post →

Most arguments for government intervention put the cart before the horse. They begin by asking whether a restriction might be useful rather than whether anyone has the right to impose it.

Liberty should be the default, and government intervention the exception. The classical liberal ideal of the presumption of liberty puts the burden of justification on those who would restrict freedom, not on those who wish to exercise it. The presumption of liberty rests on the moral equality of individuals. No person is naturally entitled to rule another; therefore, restrictions on peaceful action require justification.

A useful way to understand the presumption of liberty is through the more familiar presumption of innocence. In criminal law, the accused does not have to prove that they deserve to remain free. The state must prove that it is justified in punishing them.

The presumption of liberty extends a similar principle beyond the courtroom. People should be free to act unless there is sufficient justification for restricting them. The burden of justification rests on those who would interfere with individual liberty. The presumption of liberty does not mean people may do whatever they please regardless of the impact on others. It is a presumption in favor of people doing what they please with their own lives, consistent with everyone else’s equal freedom to do the same.

Read the rest of this post →

Medicaid is one of the largest and fastest-growing items in the federal budget and is highly vulnerable to waste, fraud, and abuse.

We took that problem to Capitol Hill, hosting a panel featuring Michael F. Cannon of the Cato Institute, Chris Pope of the Manhattan Institute, and Brian Blase of the Paragon Health Institute to discuss Medicaid’s structural weaknesses and how to address them.

No new parent looks at their baby and thinks, “I want my child to be standardized.” Cars, furniture, hardware parts, sure. But not our kids. Yet for more than a century, most kids have been educated in a factory-model school system geared toward standardization. In an effort to educate the masses, earlier generations traded the individualized nature of homeschooling and the one-room schoolhouse for an approach that sorted kids by birth date instead of ability or need and delivered content to the whole group at the same speed, whether or not it was the right content or speed. 

The expansion of educational freedom is helping fuel a movement back to a more individualized approach to learning. School choice programs, such as education savings accounts, allow parents to direct a portion of state funding to a variety of educational options. At the same time, some states are working to reduce barriers that make it difficult to create these new entities.

Much has changed for crypto in Washington since the current Trump administration took office. The enforcement campaign against the major exchanges has wound down; rulemaking has begun to replace litigation as the instrument of policy; and Congress has at last supplied rules for stablecoins. What has not changed is that market structure remains unfinished business, so most improvements rest on the goodwill of regulators rather than on the force of law. The Senate has never come closer to finishing the job than it has this year.

Market structure is the shorthand for a market’s basic legal architecture, meaning the rules that settle which body of law governs a given instrument and who supervises the firms that trade it. Supplying one for crypto is the bulk of what the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act would do. The bill would fix what a digital asset is in the eyes of the law and whether it is subject to the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). This matters because a security carries registration and disclosure duties that a commodity does not.

More than eight years after President Trump dusted off Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to tax US imports of steel and aluminum, no one should be surprised to hear that the president has stretched the meaning of “national security” in the statute (or lack thereof) to impose tariffs on a widening array of products of dubious national security relevance. Since March 2018, the Trump administration has extended the steel and aluminum duties to cover a vast array of steel and aluminum “derivatives” (i.e., products made using these metals) and imposed additional “national security” tariffs on imports of automobiles and auto parts; copper and copper derivatives; timber, lumber, and their derivatives; medium- and heavy-duty trucks, parts thereof, and buses; semiconductors; and pharmaceuticals. (Additional “national security” tariffs on polysilicon and its derivatives are set to go into effect on December 4.) 

Yet, perhaps more concerning than this headline expansion in “national security” protectionism is the administration’s move to extend the Section 232 tariffs to cover products that the average American would struggle to connect to the nation’s defense imperatives. For instance, the administration deems refrigerators, washing machines, and air-conditioning (AC) units to be steel derivatives and kitchen cabinets, sofas, and couches to be timber/​lumber derivatives, thus levying a 25 percent tariff on imports of these products. Table 1 lists these and other ridiculous examples of nondefense-related products subject to (or soon to be subject to) Section 232 tariffs. Under the guise of protecting and reinvigorating manufacturing industries whose output includes defense and critical infrastructure–related products, the administration is taxing everyday items, even if the mere suggestion that such products pose a threat to the nation’s safety is ludicrous.