The unitary executive theory of the Constitution is, more or less, that the president has absolute authority over the executive branch of the federal government. This understanding of presidential power was once quite controversial; in the wake of recent Supreme Court decisions, it has gained wider acceptance. In this post, I want to consider a problem of unitary executive theory that has received little attention. Namely, unitary executive theory may grant the president authority over federal departments, but exercising that power in individual criminal prosecutions constitutes poor public management that destroys, e.g., the Department of Justice’s institutional authority. 

Sometimes it is imprudent and unwise (and even dangerous) for the president to exercise his authority over federal departments. In contrast, the president who respects the moral norm that encourages him to keep his hands off the rest of the federal government is probably making a wise choice.

Read the rest of this post →

In the past few weeks, federal immigration agents have shot and killed two people in Texas and Maine. These cases have received significant media coverage and investigation, as did several cases in January. That’s partly because journalists were able to learn the details about the victims. But another suspicious killing in December 2025 has received less attention. 

On December 11, 2025, a Border Patrol agent killed a Mexican man in Starr County, Texas. On December 17, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued a statement, saying a 31-year-old Mexican man with others “attempted to abscond to Mexico” from the Texas side of the border. The agent “engaged in an active struggle with the man for two minutes and ultimately discharged his CBP-issued firearm,” hitting the man three times.

A study of German immigration reform provides evidence for the debate over immigrant assimilation. 

The study looked at the 

Act to Reform Nationality Law … [under which] children born in Germany on or after January 1, 2000, automatically acquired citizenship if at least one parent had legally resided in Germany for at least eight years at the time of birth. 

Researchers found 

Read the rest of this post →

Since March, a Jones Act waiver for energy and fertilizer shipments has acted as a real-time experiment in what the country might look like without the law’s shipping restrictions. The results are noteworthy, including historically significant volumes of crude oil and petroleum products being moved to the West Coast from domestic sources, a surging appetite by Puerto Rico for American fuel, and the opening of new trade routes. It’s compelling evidence for the long-standing critique that the Jones Act functions as a barrier to domestic commerce. 

But beyond its economic insights, the waiver is also producing additional evidence on the role of special interests in preserving the protectionist law. As I pointed out last year, the law’s concentrated benefits have produced an ecosystem that exerts near-constant pressure to maintain the Jones Act and thwart reform efforts, while those who bear its burden remain rationally ignorant and politically inactive. This is now playing out before us, with the waiver showing the machinery of Jones Act advocacy at work.

Read the rest of this post →

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) published a new policy program and platform this summer called Workers Deserve More. A committee elected under the group’s 2025 convention rules drafted it, its National Political Committee approved it, and it now stands as the clearest statement of what America’s largest socialist organization wants. Below are the DSA program’s main arguments for socialism, my short responses to them, and links to some of the most relevant evidence.

1. “Under socialism, ‘You have no debt. You don’t need health insurance. You don’t pay a mortgage or have a landlord, because comfortable housing is a human right.’”

There are prices on housing, medicine, food, and energy because these goods are scarce and have alternative uses. “Scarce” means that there are not enough of them to satisfy all demand at a price of zero. Those goods must be produced by people who must be fed, trained, equipped, and persuaded to show up to work. In a free-market economy, workers produce those goods because they are paid to do so, the owners of firms organize production efficiently because their profits depend on it, and the owners of capital sell it to the most profitable firms. All that activity is guided by the incentives and information provided by prices.

Read the rest of this post →

Automated pricing tools are becoming increasingly ubiquitous in the modern economy as many businesses automate their pricing strategies to ensure their prices reflect market realities. Media attention, regulatory proposals, and a timely congressional hearing have largely focused on “surveillance pricing” and what we discussed as individualized dynamic pricing (IDP) in a previous blog. Despite fears of price gouging, these pricing methods have real efficiency benefits and are particularly effective at reducing waste.

However, there are other forms of automated tools in our day-to-day lives that do not necessarily rely on individuals’ data, as IDP does. This piece will focus on algorithmic pricing, understood as the general practice of automating the price-setting process, and the allegations that it might enable collusion amongst competitors. In the context of general algorithm-powered pricing, this alleged “collusion” typically refers to the use of automated tools to analyze market data to coordinate competitors’ prices. With a few notable exceptions, this is typical competitive behavior. For firms to compete on price, they must be able to track their competitors. Algorithmic pricing reduces the costs associated with monitoring and responding to market conditions. Taken alone, it is just using new technology to make an old process more efficient.

Read the rest of this post →

Senators John Curtis (R‑UT) and Mark Kelly (D‑AZ) have introduced the State-Sponsored Visa Pilot Program Act (S. 5197). The legislation, which would allow states to sponsor foreign workers, was originally introduced in a slightly modified form in 2017 by Senators Ron Johnson (R‑WI) and John McCain (R‑AZ). Sen. Curtis had previously introduced a version during his time in the House. 

Why State-Sponsored Visas Make Sense

A state-sponsored visa is a fantastic idea. If the State-Sponsored Visa Pilot Program Act had existed, there would have been very little illegal immigration since 1986, the last major guest worker reform. American employers would have had a legal way to hire foreign workers, and foreign workers would have had a legal way to come and work. A legal workforce also benefits American workers by creating more opportunities for them in complementary roles as managers and supervisors. 

Read the rest of this post →