Category: Government

Our First Amendment Freedom of Speech

President Trump seems to disregard our constitution generally but his attack on its guarantee of our freedom of speech is particularly dangerous. Its importance to our freedoms and democratic governance is so well-known and obvious that I will not bother to defend it. Trump has increasingly utilized his executive power and the administrative apparatus to target, penalize, or attempt to silence his critics, political opponents, and media organizations.

Through executive orders, directives, and appointees, the administration has ordered investigations into political adversaries and former officials who publicly criticized him. This includes directive-backed investigations targeting former government security officials like Chris Krebs (who contradicted election fraud claims) and first-term Trump official Miles Taylor.

Trump has repeatedly stripped high-ranking former officials and critics—such as former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey—of their security clearances, access to classified briefings, or government protection details after they issued public criticism. The Department of Justice is pursuing criminal prosecutions against former FBI Director James Comey on trumped up (no pun intended, maybe) charges.

Executive actions have targeted non-profit think tanks, advocacy groups, and legal firms that represented positions adverse to the administration or published critical reports, including threats to target their tax-exempt statuses or initiate government reviews.

In an excellent and damning critique of Trump’s use of executive power to silence his critics Walter Olsen reported that “Donald Trump says he’s going to sue a private think tank over a report criticizing his policies. The report, from the left-leaning Center for American Progress, enraged him by arguing that his decision to deploy the National Guard in Washington, D.C. doesn’t really deserve credit for the city’s drop in violent crime rates since then because rates had been falling steeply before he acted.”  https://www.facebook.com/share/p/191KXwjiEJ/

Executive agencies have been leveraged to exert pressure on disfavored press. Measures have included revoking White House press credentials for journalists and news outlets covering the administration critically, threatening the regulatory status or FCC licenses of major broadcast networks, and directing federal agencies to limit media access.

Secretary of Defense Hegseth (after some thought and a glass of wine I have decided not to use any of the adjectives that I think apply to him) has largely shut down a free press in his department.  When he issued directives requiring journalists to obtain official approval before publishing military information—even unclassified details—and prohibiting unapproved gathering of information, most journalists walked out and took legal action. Dozens of major news outlets across the political spectrum—including The New York Times, Associated Press, Reuters, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox News—refused to sign the pledge. Media organizations issued joint statements condemning the directive as an unconstitutional attempt at prior restraint and an assault on First Amendment press freedoms.

Media organizations challenged the policy in court (New York Times v. Department of Defense). In March 2026, a federal district judge ruled that the DOD rules amounted to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and censorship, ordering the restoration of press credentials for journalists who refused to sign.

More recently “the longtime publisher of Stars and Stripes announced he’s stepping down weeks after the Pentagon installed an active-duty Navy captain at the military newspaper, an atypical appointment that staffers, board members and Democratic lawmakers say risks further eroding the publication’s independence from the government.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2026/08/20/democrats-sound-alarm-about-new-leader-uniform-stars-stripes/

Step by step the direction Trump is taking the country remains clear.

Econ 101: Profits

Is it a bad thing for oil company profits to increase when oil prices jump?

A country’s economic wellbeing—its national income and standard of living—is maximized when its economic resources (capital and labor) are allocated to their most profitable uses. When that is the case, no other use of capital and labor can increase the value of total output. This includes goods produced for export in order to pay for goods and services imported.

An economy that has maximized its output in this way (allocated all its resources to their most productive uses), will suffer a drop in income if a tax causes a change in this resource allocation. As an example, consider a tax (called a tariff) on the importation of certain medicines now produced abroad. In fact, President Trump is threatening a 100% tariff on imported generic drugs, with the rate rising to 200% later, if manufacturers do not move production to the U.S. Hopefully it is obvious that if the existing allocation of resources between products and whether they are produced here or there is optimal (maximizing output), then shifting the production of the drugs now produced in India (for example) to the U.S. will result in a fall in our aggregate income. The resources devoted to producing what ever we exported (to pay for our drug imports) would have to be shifted to domestic production of the drugs now imported. We will lose the comparative advantage of the existing allocation. The reallocation will reduce overall output. In short, if the allocation was optimal to begin with, the tariff and reallocation will reduce aggregate income. It is a bad idea.

But what about the jump in oil company profits because of the Iran war induced increase in the price of oil?  When resources are optimally allocated, risk-adjusted profits will be the same everywhere because resources will be moved to where profits are higher (thus lowering them) until they are the same everywhere (risk-adjusted). Oil prices have increased because of the war-related fall in the supply of crude oil. Nothing has changed in the cost of lifting and supplying existing non-war-related supplies of crude. In the real world, of course all kinds of things are changing all the time and it is very desirable for resource allocations to change as well in response. That is precisely what chasing profits does.

The increase in profits from producing the same amount crude in the U.S. from the increase in the world price of oil, creates a profit incentive to allocate more resources to finding and pumping it up. That is very desirable for easing the current supply shortage. An increase in profit is a market incentive to increase the resources devoted to producing something. It would be counterproductive to interfere with that very desirable response.

Foreign Students

The Trump administration finalized a major rule to tighten student visas by ending the “duration of status” policy and imposing a fixed four-year maximum admission cap. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2026/07/16/trump-administration-issues-final-rule-end-foreign-student-visa-abuse   Why? Foreign students benefit the U.S. in a number of ways and we should seek to increase their number.

First: hosting foreign students is an export, it pays foreign money into the U.S. via tuition, room and board and other purchases these students make in the U.S.. The inflow of foreign exchange helps provide us with the means for paying for what we import from abroad. https://wcoats.blog/2025/11/04/trade/

Second: Foreign students gain firsthand experience of life in the U.S., often making lifelong friends. They take this knowledge home improving American relations with other countries. American student benefit from meeting and befriending the foreign students, thus broadening their knowledge of other cultures.

Third: When foreign students decide to remain in the U.S. we benefit from their knowledge and expertise increasing American income and wealth.

According to annual economic impact data calculated by NAFSA: Association of International Educators, foreign students spent and contributed $43.8 billion and supported approximately 378,000 jobs in the U.S. in the 2023–2024 Academic Year. This fell 2% during the next year, which was the first year of the current Trump administration.

We would do much better to deport Stephen Miller.

Tariffs again

“Mr. Trump said that generic-drug manufacturers must move production to America or their products will face a 100% tariff from August 2028. A 200% levy would follow from August 2029.” 

All economists and hopefully you as well understand that your standard of living (income) is higher (much higher) because you can specialize in what you are best at and trade for the rest (exploiting “comparative advantage”). If you had to be totally self-sufficient you would be dirt poor.

Unfortunately, Stephen Miller and Donald Trump don’t understand this or is it just that Trump gets such a kick out of throwing his weight around that he doesn’t care??

Obeying the rules is in our interest

The U.S. Department of Justice indicted former Cuban President Raúl Castro for his alleged role in the 1996 Cuban military downing of two civilian planes operated by the exile group Brothers to the Rescue, which killed four people (including three U.S. citizens).Since September 2, 2025, the U.S. military has attacked suspected drug boats in the Caribbean and the Eastern Pacific 59 times, killing 196 people. Shouldn’t we be indicting Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, for murder?

“According to President Donald Trump’s mysterious math, that means this campaign of carnage has prevented around 1.5 million drug-related deaths in the United States—more than 20 times the total number recorded in the year before Trump started treating suspected cocaine smugglers as ‘combatants’ who can be killed at will, from a distance and in cold blood.

“Back on planet Earth, there is no reason to think the boat strikes have prevented any deaths at all. That could only happen if blowing up smugglers—as opposed to the previous practice of intercepting them, arresting them, and seizing their cargo, which Trump says was ‘totally ineffective’—reduced the supply of cocaine available to American consumers. Given more than a century of failed attempts to ‘stop the flow’ of illegal intoxicants, that never seemed likely. And nearly nine months after Trump launched his new, deadlier version of the war on drugs, there is no evidence that it is more effective than the traditional tactics he derides as insufficiently homicidal.” Jacob Sullum, “Blowing up boats hasn’t slowed cocaine traffic to U.S.”

Should we care about such a double standard? Yes. What we are doing is not only illegal but also immoral. Hopefully we aspire to behave morally because we aspire to be moral people. But there is a practical self-interest in playing by the rules as well.

We could often get our way simply because we are the strongest guy on the block. President Trump seems to like being a bully. However, pushing others around has a cost. The better we can live up to the high principles upon which our nation was founded, the more respect we will receive from others (nations and people). One of those important principles is adhering to the rule of law. Such respect means that others will cooperate with us more easily (at lower cost to us).

International norms and conventions generally serve the interests of all who have agreed to them. Win, win. When we violate them, the world pays a cost and so do we.

Abraham Lincoln

Last night we finished the three-episode 2022 History Channel mini-series on Abraham Lincoln. Thank you Jim Bailey for recommending it. In addition to the character acting, the story was narrated by Barack Obama: (former U.S. President); Catherine Clinton (Historian); Christy S. Coleman (Historical Consultant); Allen C. Guelzo (Lincoln Scholar); Harold Holzer (Lincoln Scholar); Caroline Janney (Civil War Historian); Edna Greene Medford (Historian); General Stanley A. McChrystal (Retired U.S. Army General).

There was so much about Lincoln and his struggles and wisdom in reuniting the American union that I had not known. That history was masterfully presented in this series. Most Southern states seceded from the Union in 1861 to preserve their right to own slaves. To reunite the union Lincoln launched a war with the south that eventually killed 620,000 to 700,000 American’s. In the midst of this war Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation which declared that all enslaved people in Confederate states still in rebellion against the Union “shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free”.

When Robert E Lee surrendered his troops, thus ending the war, Lincoln allowed  members of the Confederate Army to return home and to their farms without punishment. In today’s environment it is hard to imagine such generous treatment of one’s enemies. But Lincoln had the wisdom, integrity, and kindness of heart to understand that reuniting the union required mutual acceptance of one’s previous enemies.

Lincoln’s tragic assassination by John Wilkes Booth shortly after his re-election deprived the South of his wisdom during the Reconstruction period that followed the war.

SCOTUS – Louisiana v. Callais

“The Supreme Court’s invalidation of Louisiana’s congressional map has triggered a swirling debate about just how fundamentally the justices altered the Voting Rights Act landscape.” This and following quotes are from The Hill article: the hill – regulating voting-rights-act-supreme-court – SCOTUS-Decision  

The court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais was adopted by 6 – 3 of the judges.

I am quite amazed how dramatically differently some people have characterized the decision’s result.

“Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 [as Amended in 1982] has enabled groups to force states to draw additional majority-minority districts for decades,” despite the 15th Amendment to US constitution in 1870, which prohibited the federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen’s “race, color, or previous condition of servitude”, effectively protecting the voting rights of Blacks.

Section 2 “bars voting maps that give a racial minority ‘less opportunity than other members of the electorate’ to elect their preferred candidate.”

In Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), the Supreme Court ruled that multi-member legislative districts in North Carolina violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting Black voting power. The landmark ruling established a critical three-part legal test to determine if an electoral map illegally discriminates against minority voters.

To prove a violation of Section 2, plaintiffs must satisfy the following three preconditions:

  1. Numerosity and Compactness: The minority group must be sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a voting majority in a single-member district.
  2. Political Cohesion: The minority group must show that it is politically cohesive, meaning they largely vote for the same candidates.
  3. Majority Bloc Voting: The plaintiffs must prove that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to usually defeat the minority group’s preferred candidates

After Thornburg v. Gingles, plaintiffs could prove vote dilution by showing that a minority group was large and compact enough to form a majority in a reasonably drawn district, was politically cohesive, and faced bloc voting by the majority that usually defeated its preferred candidates.

That framework gave civil-rights groups a litigation template: draw an “illustrative” majority-minority district, show polarized voting, and argue that the state had cracked or packed minority voters so they could not elect their preferred candidate. If they won their case, the remedy often required the state to create an additional majority-minority district, even though Section 2 formally says it does not create a right to proportional representation.

In its recent Louisiana v. Callais ruling the Court held that Louisiana’s second majority-Black congressional district was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and that Section 2 did not require Louisiana to draw it. The Court majority said that Voting Rights Act compliance can be a compelling interest only when Section 2 is properly construed, and it tightened the Gingles test by requiring race-neutral illustrative maps, closer adherence to state districting goals such as compactness, incumbency protection, and partisan objectives, and evidence separating racial bloc voting from ordinary partisan voting.

The practical effect is that plaintiffs can no longer easily say, “Here is a compact majority-minority district; therefore, the state must draw it.” After Callais, they must show that the alternative map satisfies the state’s nonracial redistricting criteria, that the voting polarization is racial rather than merely partisan, and that the totality of circumstances points to present-day legally relevant discrimination rather than mainly historical disadvantage.

A “majority-minority district” is one in which a racial minority (blacks, Asian, Hispanics, etc.) constitute a majority of the voters. The presumption seems to be that, for example, only (or mostly) blacks will vote for a black candidate. That is clearly a racist view. Barack Obama, for example, was elected President of the United States by a majority of white voters.

I am really shocked at how overtly racist the opposition to the court’s decision is. “’Unfortunately, we are talking about rolling back to an era of Jim Crow, and I don’t believe I’m overstating that,’ Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s voting rights project, But Jim Crow laws were used to segregate blacks and whites. Majority-minority districts move in the same direction. The court’s weakening of the arguments for such districts is the opposite of a Jim Crow law. Voters are motivated by many things, but I have more confidence than does Ms. Lakin in voters choosing the candidate they think best and most effectively supports the policies they support, whether the voter is black, white, or yellow whatever the color of the candidate.

“House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said the law was ‘largely gone,’ telling reporters the decision was ‘designed to undermine the ability of communities of color all across this country to elect their candidate of choice.’” Good grief.

Here is an excellent discussion of this issue: “The supreme court’s vote ruling empowers minorities”

Homeland – Final

We have now completed all eight seasons of Homeland. After my review of the first two seasons my old U of Chicago friend and fellow libertarian, Joe Cobb, said that we would like the rest of it as well. He was correct. The story continued to confront the main characters with excruciating choices with more plot twists than I could keep track of. Would you take steps to save the life of a friend that could result in the deaths of several thousand—or the reverse.

But what I want to share with you here is how eerily like today the early 2000s were. We were fighting with Iran, then Iraq. Forever wars our current President promised to end (remember that?). Not only did the struggles being portrayed seem like today but reviewing my email and news flashes during our breaks between episodes seemed like a continuation of the TV series. It was really weird. Homeland moves into my list of all-time favorite series, which includes The Wire, The Jewel in the Crown, and Breaking Bad.

National Science Foundation

On Friday, April 24, President Trump fired all 24 members of the National Science Foundation Board without saying why their staggered six year terms were not honored. Unlike executive branch departments, such as Treasury, Defense (now called Dept of War), Education, etc., which rightly should reflect the policy preferences of the President, the NSF, like the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, was carefully designed to be nonpartisan for good reason. A Forbes article by John Drake nicely explains the purpose of such design.

“Most people outside the research enterprise have never heard of the NSB, so it’s worth saying what it is. The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 created NSF with two heads: a director and a board. Jointly they set the strategic direction of an agency that now distributes roughly $9 billion annually in federal research funding, approve its budget submissions, and authorize new major programs. The board’s members are nominated for their distinguished records in science, engineering, education, and public affairs, drawn from industry and universities, and confirmed to staggered six-year terms so that scientific research priorities are set by the long arc of scientific progress rather than the election cycle. The statute requires that members be chosen “solely on the basis of established records of distinguished service.”

“That last phrase is the one I keep returning to.

“American scientist, inventor and administrator Vannevar Bush (1890 – 1974), whose ‘differential analyser’ was a forerunner of the computer, served as director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development throughout World War II and authored an influential report that led to the founding of the National Science Foundation. More American scientific preeminence is often discussed as if it were a product of talent or funding. It is really a product of institutions, the unglamorous architecture of boards, charters, terms of service, peer review and statutory independence that the postwar generation built deliberately. The structure traces to Vannevar Bush’s 1945 report Science, the Endless Frontier, which argued that federal science required governance insulated from political pressure and stability of support beyond any single budget cycle. The five-year fight to translate Bush’s vision into law turned largely on questions of independence and accountability, and the staggered six-year terms were part of the resulting compromise. Six-year terms exist for a reason. Staggered appointments exist for a reason. “Solely on the basis of distinguished service” is in the founding statute for a reason.

“The board’s function has been contested before, but always on the existing terms. As recently as 2022, scholars were debating how to modernize the board’s role, proposing to reduce its management duties and make NSF look more like other federal agencies. But other federal agencies are precisely the ones most exposed to political control. Their leaders serve at the pleasure of the president. Their priorities shift with each administration. The whole reason NSF’s structure is unusual is that the postwar designers did not want science funding to work that way. Even the would-be reformers recognized this: they proposed keeping the board’s staggered terms and statutory independence intact.

“These structures depend on a shared understanding, across administrations and across parties, that some institutions are worth preserving even when they constrain you. When that understanding lapses, the structures themselves do not survive long.

“On May 5, the National Science Board is scheduled to meet. There is no agenda, and at the moment, no board. That absence is the thing worth attending to, beyond the news of any particular firing. The question is not who sits on the board. The question is whether the kind of board the 1950 Act envisioned still exists in practice, and what American science looks like if it does not.” 2026/04/25/ “Trump fired the entire national science board-here’s why that matters”

At a minimum, when the President takes such action, the public should be given an explanation for why he thought it was justified. Ideally such a dramatic step should be preceded by a public discussion of the pros and cons of doing so.  This is not Trump’s style.

It my opinion Elon Musk’s DOGE downsizing of government (9% reduction in Federal employees before some had to be rehired and reducing the federal budget by claimed savings between roughly 160–215 billion dollars, counting job cuts, contract and lease cancellations, asset sales, and grant reductions) did more harm than good. Musk initially talked about cutting “at least 2 trillion dollars” from the federal budget, later revising goals down to around 1 trillion and then still lower, but actual savings fell far short of any of those targets.

A CBS‑covered analysis by a nonpartisan research group estimated that while DOGE claimed about 160 billion dollars in gross savings, its actions would also impose roughly 135 billion dollars in additional costs in the same fiscal year (for example through deferred‑resignation pay, disruption, and lost enforcement/revenue), implying a net savings nearer 25 billion dollars in that window.

But the real tragedy is that the opportunity to carefully evaluate and publicly debate whether government agencies were performing beneficial functions and doing so as efficiently as possible was totally missed. I offer the example of USAID, with whom I have worked both as a contractor and across the table as a collaborator. In my experience they have done an outstanding job serving America’s foreign policy interests:  https://wcoats.blog/2025/02/17/usaid/

The Trump administration has not operated in the traditional manor of our best (or even mediocre) Presidents. Even Kings are usually more careful in justifying and explaining their dictates.

Gerrymandering

The United States has flourished and grown to almost the highest GDP per capital in the world (exceeded only by tiny Luxembourg, Switzerland, Ireland, Singapore, and Iceland) because of the individual freedom of its citizens to act in their own interest and whose property and freedoms are protected by a government to which they gave limited powers. Historically individuals only had the rights and freedoms handed down to them by their Kings/rulers.

The preservation of the rule of law under our Constitution is essential for our continued flourishing. It is eroding.

The U.S. House of Representatives has 430 members of which currently 217 are Republicans and 212 are Democrats (one is independent). These numbers have changed slightly because of recent “resignations.” The number of representatives from each state depends on its population at the end of each decade’s Census. Each state is geographically divided into the number of congressional districts matching its number of representatives. While states may approach the drawing of its congressional districts in its own way, there are some criteria that must be observed.

1. Federal Mandatory Criteria

These rules apply to every state, regardless of their internal policies:

  • Equal Population: Based on the principle of “one person, one vote,” districts must be as nearly equal in population as practicable. This is rooted in the U.S. Constitution and upheld by Supreme Court cases like Wesberry v. Sanders.
  • Race and Ethnicity (The Voting Rights Act): Under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, districts cannot be drawn in a way that dilutes the voting power of racial or language minorities. In some cases, this requires the creation of “majority-minority” districts.

2. Traditional Districting Principles

Most states also follow “traditional” principles to keep districts logical and representative. These vary by state law:

  • Contiguity: All parts of a district must be physically connected. You shouldn’t have to leave the district to get to another part of it.
  • Compactness: Districts should be geographically “tight” rather than sprawling or having jagged, “finger-like” extensions (though this is frequently debated in court).
  • Respect for Political Subdivisions: Mapmakers often try to avoid splitting counties, cities, or towns between multiple districts.
  • Communities of Interest: This is the effort to keep groups with shared social, economic, or cultural interests together so they have a unified voice in Congress.

If district lines are drawn to concentrate likely Republican or Democrat voters into one or a few districts, their voting strength in other districts would be reduced. In this way the likely number of Republican or Democrat representatives from the state can often be increased or decreased, a practice known as gerrymandering. Such political concentration has also favored the election of candidates with more extreme views within their party hollowing out the center.

 “Ordinarily, states draw new congressional lines once every 10 years, at the start of the decade when they receive new data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Last year, Trump pressed Republican-led states to break with that tradition and gerrymander their districts to help his party maintain its narrow control of the House.

“The push resulted in better lines for the GOP in five districts in Texas, two in Ohio and one each in Missouri and North Carolina. Democrats responded by persuading voters to approve new maps that would give Democrats the edge in five seats in California and four in Virginia.”  Washington Post  Redistricting in Virginia

While I have been a free market, limited government Republican all my life until Trump’s first campaign in 2016, I was not willing to vote for him and changed my party to Libertarian. Given my disappointment with the Republican Party’s unwillingness to use its constitutional authority to vote on tariffs and war among other things, I am hopeful that the Democrats will take control of Congress in the midterm elections later this year. None the less I voted No on Virginia’s referendum on a midterm redistricting that is expected to give Democrats 4 additional seats in the House. Why? Gaining House seats by questionable (The Supreme Court may reverse all of this) mid-decade redistricting rather than by convincing voters to change their votes diminishes the rule of law I so strongly defend.

Democratic Sen. John Fetterman (Pa.) reacted with dismay Tuesday evening when informed during an appearance on NewsNation’s “Cuomo” that a Democratic redistricting initiative had passed in Virginia, declaring, “We all lose at this point.”

“Even The Washington Post has said the ‘yes’ campaign is, in their words, brazenly dishonest.”  David Weigel, Semafor