According to the 2026 Social Security Trustees Report, the Social Security Trust Fund is projected to hit zero by the end of 2032. Under current law, that means a 22 percent benefit cut for all existing and future beneficiaries. 

It sounds horrific. Yet this outcome might be the most realistic option available.

Social Security collects taxes from the working-age population and pays benefits to the “retired” population. The taxes flow into, and the benefits out of, a trust fund. Thus, the system’s financial condition depends, under existing law, on the status of this trust fund.

As we continue our special “AI in Education” series, it’s time to consider the funding side. On Tuesday, my colleague Jennifer Huddleston examined why AI in the classroom matters and the importance of parents and teachers deciding how kids use it. Yesterday, she and Christopher Gardner looked at how teachers can benefit from AI. 

School choice is an important element that relates to both topics. It’s easy enough to say parents should decide how much their children interact with AI in school. But how realistic is that in practice? In our current system, parents are generally mandated to send their children to assigned public schools. If they want something different, they must pay twice for education—once in taxes and again in tuition or homeschooling costs. Similarly, as public schools have a near monopoly on education in most areas, that’s where the vast majority of teachers work.

In the so-called AI manifesto war, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has adopted an offensive posture that stands out from those issued by his peers. “We propose a philosophy based on individual empowerment as the source of prosperity, invention as the primary purpose of superintelligence, and balance of power as the foundation of safety,” he writes. Whether Meta will practice what it preaches—and spur others to do so—is an open question. 

On Sunday, President Trump unexpectedly ordered a scaling back of the US–Republic of Korea Ulchi Freedom Shield military exercises scheduled for August 17–27. Invoking his “very good relationship” with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, he wrote that the drills would send an “inappropriate and hostile” signal to an “unthreatening and respectful” North Korea. And today, the Wall Street Journal reports that he has asked his advisors to try to arrange a meeting with Kim, possibly as soon as November, when Trump next visits Asia.

The move reflects a desire to reboot the US–Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) talks of Trump’s first term, when he became the first sitting US president to meet with a North Korean leader. The two sealed a landmark joint statement of principles in Singapore in 2018. Draft agreements were drawn up that would have regularized US-DPRK relations and declared an end to the Korean War, but the process foundered on the DPRK’s unwillingness to accede to US demands that it rapidly relinquish its nuclear weapons and production capabilities. 

The technologies used in classrooms are constantly evolving. Teachers have worked on chalkboards, whiteboards, and smartboards. They have gone from grading exams by hand to using Scantrons to now using entirely digital formats. This evolution has been occurring since the dawn of education, as has the concern about the potential impact of each technology on teachers and the quality of education. After all, Socrates expressed concern that the written word could tell without teaching. But wise teachers have adapted to these technologies, using them not as replacements but improvements that can allow them to use their skills more judiciously.

Number 29 in our series of occasional roundups on election law and policy, returning to the topic (also treated in June) of state and local preparations for last-minute disruptions and federal interference in the midterm elections.

• How serious is the danger that bad actors will subvert majority control of the House or Senate by refusing to seat duly certified winners? Among those who’ve raised alarms are retired judge J. Michael Luttig, David French, Steve Posner, and Andy Craig at The UnPopulist. On the other hand, Ned Foley points out that because the House is not a continuing body, the Speaker from the previous House has no role in the new one. Foley also discusses “rogue clerk” scenarios in the House, as does Matthew Seligman (“As a matter of positive law, I do not think this scenario is viable”). Derek Muller criticizes “fearmongering” and says “most scenarios get basic facts or law wrong.” Read and decide for yourself!

• Various laws on state books restrict election interference. Under what circumstances can states enforce those laws against federal government actors? [Danielle Friedman, Bryna Godar, and Emily Lau, State Democracy Research Initiative (University of Wisconsin School of Law); and coauthor Friedman interviewed by Bob Bauer at Executive Functions.] Even if the president finds some legal rationale for deploying armed personnel to the polls, federal as well as state law will continue to impose significant constraints [Dan Maurer, Lawfare]. With certification a key target for bad actors to disrupt, “State officials have several legal tools available to respond to any certification issues that arise—and to help prevent them in the first place” [Brennan Center; more from colleague Patrick Eddington].

  Read the rest of this post →

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 →