Today, the Trump administration made public two new rules limiting legal immigration: one, a massive overhaul of the international student visa system; the other, a rewrite of the public charge ground of inadmissibility that will primarily hit relatives of US citizens—overwhelmingly their spouses and minor children. 

As I have detailed, Trump had already cut legal immigration far more than illegal immigration—2.5 times as much. These two rules will exacerbate that trend. Neither targets anyone who crossed the border illegally. Both target people who did exactly what the law asked of them.

The Student Rule: Banned from Changing Your Mind 

Previously, international students on F visas, exchange visitors on J visas, and foreign media on I visas were granted admission for their “duration of status”—that is, for as long as they were in status or following the rules of the visa programs. DHS’s final rule replaces that with a fixed period of entry of no more than four years (for international students and exchange visitors). But it does far more than end open-ended admission. Littered throughout it is a set of unprecedented restrictions with no statutory basis. 

• Read the rest of this post →

Last night during his national address, President Trump claimed that key documents he ordered declassified demonstrate that the US Intelligence Community (IC) withheld or otherwise soft-pedaled evidence of foreign election interference or voting machine vulnerabilities. The documents at issue—released in a process that can be charitably described as irregular at best—tell a different story.

One very recent CIA document (dated June 29, 2026) had this to say about allegations of Venezuelan government efforts to manipulate electronic voting systems:

Read the rest of this post →

A recent study points out the dearth of historical research on the macroeconomic effects of tariffs, especially as a tool to analyze modern-day tariffs. The study

addressed this challenge by analyzing all major US tariff rate changes from 1840 to 2024. Drawing on historical research, congressional records, and statutes, we identified … 21 tariff rate changes, which we used to examine the macroeconomic effects of tariffs.

These examples

reveal that increasing tariff rates contracted the US economy. … [T]ariff increases did not shield domestic industry despite their protective intent. Additionally, trade contracted markedly. 

Read the rest of this post →

When Richard Hershey stood on a public sidewalk outside the Brookshire Grocery Arena in Bossier City, Louisiana, to hand out pamphlets promoting the Chirstian Vegetarian Association outside a Christian rock concert, he was doing what many generations of Americans have done before him: peacefully exercising his First Amendment rights in a traditional public forum. Yet, local police and arena security officers threatened him with arrest and forced him to leave, even as they left a nearby representative of a commercial radio station entirely unbothered. Seeking justice for this blatant display of viewpoint discrimination, Mr. Hershey filed a federal civil rights lawsuit under a statute commonly known as Section 1983. But rather than vindicate his rights, the federal district court granted the officers qualified immunity, and the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed.

This week, Reuters and Politico reported that the White House plans to expand the Ratepayer Protection Pledge by encouraging utilities, data center developers, and Republican governors to join the effort. The pledge rests on a simple principle: The technology companies driving the AI boom should pay the full cost of the electricity infrastructure they require, rather than shifting those costs onto American families.

That’s the right objective. The next step is finding a policy that actually achieves that.

Public concern over data centers has grown rapidly, driven less by opposition to artificial intelligence than by fears of higher electricity bills. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul recently responded by imposing a statewide moratorium on new data center construction. Other states are considering similar restrictions. Whether those concerns are justified or not, the political reality is clear: If policymakers cannot protect consumers from rising costs, they will eventually protect them by slowing development instead.

America needs a better option. The Trump administration should champion reforms that accomplish both goals at once: accelerate AI infrastructure while ensuring American families never have to subsidize development. Consumer-Regulated Electricity (CRE) offers exactly that solution by allowing developers to build and operate entirely private electricity networks outside the traditional regulated grid.

A disclaimer up front: I am not a Russia specialist. I have no particular expertise on the war in Ukraine, and no informed view on whether another round of sanctions on Moscow is necessary, sufficient, or beside the point. 

But I do know something about what happens when Congress hands the executive branch, and President Trump in particular, unilateral and discretionary tariff authority. And the tariff title of the Sanctioning Russia Act of 2026—the long-stalled package championed by the late Sen. Lindsey Graham (R‑SC), now backed by the White House and more than two dozen senators—deserves a hard look on those grounds alone.

The bill would authorize the president to impose tariffs of up to 100 percent on the five largest purchasers of Russian crude oil, currently China, India, Slovakia, Hungary, and Azerbaijan, and on the five largest buyers of Russian natural gas, which last year were China, France, Belgium, Japan, and Hungary.

“Two weeks before this year’s primary elections,” according to a recent report, “Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced the creation of a tip line for the public to report people or groups suspected of voter fraud.” Oops! “Despite his own warnings, Paxton appears to have used an address where he did not live while voting in six elections in the past two years, including in May’s runoff that made him the Republican nominee for U.S. senator, according to records obtained by ProPublica and The Texas Tribune.“

Paxton’s campaign responded by calling the report “a baseless, lie-filled tabloid story” and said the candidate “is a registered Texas voter who is in full compliance with state law.” Perhaps it would be most prudent to defer drawing conclusions until after a probe can be completed. When that will happen is uncertain, given that Paxton, as incumbent state attorney general, is himself responsible for conducting any such investigation.

Yesterday, I helped record a Cato video for later release on the subjects of voter fraud and election integrity. While I didn’t bring up the Paxton allegations, I observed that the kind of voter fraud that’s probably committed most often in national elections is the kind carried on by persons with multiple residences who vote from a residence other than the one that the law designates as lawful for that purpose.