Marshall for The Hill: Reindustrialization Is Just Central Planning, MAGA-Style

Why is President Trump so intent on inflicting his unpopular tariffs on the U.S. economy? How did America, always a trading nation bordering two oceans, suddenly become the free world’s glowering bastion of protectionism?

The president’s logic is often fuzzy, but for once he and his economic team have a clear answer: They’re on a mission to reindustrialize America. They call it “economic nationalism,” but it’s really just central planning, MAGA-style.

Trump believes free trade agreements and globalization eviscerated U.S. manufacturing, studding the landscape with shuttered factories — “tombstones” as he put it in his bleak 2017 inaugural address.

In fact, U.S. manufacturing output has grown substantially since 1980. What has declined is factory employment and manufacturing’s share of GDP. That tracks the trend of deindustrialization and rising demand for services in all advanced countries, regardless of trade policies.

Nonetheless, the president is ripping up trade agreements and taxing imports from friends and foes alike, in hopes of generating lots more factory jobs. But building walls around our economy won’t change the fact that automation has severed the old relationship between increased industrial production and blue-collar job growth.

Keep reading in The Hill.

U.S. public disapproves of Trump tariffs by about 63% to 35%

FACT: U.S. public disapproves of Trump tariffs by about 63% to 35%.

THE NUMBERS: Trump administration tariffs on goods from –

Brazil      50%
Venezuela      15%

WHAT THEY MEAN: 

A concise 73-word resolution from Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.):

“Pursuant to section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622), the national emergency declared on April 2, 2025, by the President in Executive Order 14257 (90 Fed. Reg. 15041) is terminated effective on the date of the enactment of this joint resolution.”

This resolution would repeal the Trump administration’s April decree imposing a worldwide 10% import tax, plus various country-by-country rates ranging from 15% to 40%. It’s up for a vote before the end of October. So are two more from Sens. Kaine (D-Va.), Paul, Wyden, and others, which would terminate a February administration tariff decree on Canadian-made goods and another from July on Brazilian products. A look at each, and their effects so far:

The decrees: The Trump administration has been trying since February to replace the Congressionally authorized “Harmonized Tariff Schedule” with a new one, but also to evade the Constitutional approach to changes in tariff rates — Congressional bills — through a series of decrees declaring states of “emergency” or “national security” need. The three at issue this month use a 1974 law, the “International Emergency Economic Powers Act,” meant for quick action in the outbreak of wars, pandemics, or similar events. They are:

1. Canada, February 1: The first decree — “Executive Order 14193” — claimed Canada is “failing to devote significant attention or resources, or cooperate with U.S. law enforcement” on drug trafficking (in particular fentanyl), and imposed 25% tariffs on Canadian-made and -grown goods. It has since been revised to cover just products not ‘compliant’ with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. Per CBP’s data, northern-border drug trafficking is small: of the 21,100 pounds of fentanyl seized at borders and within the U.S. in 2024, only 49 pounds — about 0.2% — were “northern border” seizures. This includes some internal U.S. production in border states as well as international traffic. Canadian law enforcement, meanwhile, reports seizures of about 6.4 kilos (14 pounds) of fentanyl last year, so it’s possible more flows north from the U.S. to Canada than comes down.

2. Worldwide, April 2: The second, “Executive Order 141257,” declares the U.S. trade balance a ‘national emergency’ justifying the wholesale replacement of the Congressionally authorized tariff schedule with dozens of new rates set by country, plus a worldwide 10%. Overall, it has hiked U.S. tariff rates from last year’s 2.4% to about 18%. The U.S. has run a goods-trade “deficit” since 1975. Since then U.S. GDP has quadrupled (per BEA from $6 trillion to $24 trillion, in real 2017 dollars) and U.S. employment has doubled from 77 million to 160 million. As to whether this long deficit pattern is a problem, reasonable analysts disagree; it’s hard, though, to see a 50-year stretch enduring through booms, recessions, etc. as an “emergency.”

3. Brazil, July 30: This one, “Executive Order 14233,” revises the April 2 decree to put a 40% on most Brazilian goods (though with many exemptions), on top of the original 10%. So, a 50% total. Identical goods from next-door Venezuela get 15%. Entitled “Addressing Threats to the United States from the Government of Brazil”, this decree cites as “threats” overly intrusive online content moderation and the prosecution of ex-President Bolsonaro for attempting to overthrow Brazil’s 2022 presidential election. It probably isn’t controversial to note that Venezuelan speech policies and court procedures are pretty far below Brazilian standards.

Now to some real-world results:

1. Lost growth, higher inflation: In “macro” terms, yesterday’s IMF “World Economic Outlook” projections for the United States show the U.S. losing about a point of growth and gaining a point of inflation. More locally, here’s an Ohio sample — higher costs, higher prices — from the Cleveland Fed’s September Beige Book:

“Many manufacturers reported that tariffs had increased the costs of electronic components, tools, metals, and other raw materials, with multiple contacts noting a lack of domestic suppliers for some items. Retail contacts cited higher costs related to tariffs on vehicles, beef, and other commodities. One healthcare contact said tariffs had affected hospital drug pricing, pushing up the cost per unit of service. Some manufacturers and auto dealers reported passing along 100 percent of tariff increases to customers, while others said they were slowly raising prices in response to higher tariffs. … Several contacts in manufacturing and professional and business services reported waiting to see “how things settle” before increasing prices but anticipated doing so in the near term.”

2. Industrial contraction: The core goals of all this, according to U.S. Trade Representative Greer, are a higher manufacturing share of GDP and a lower trade deficit. Since the administration’s decrees began in February, manufacturing has dropped from 9.8% of GDP in 2024 to 9.4%. Automakers in particular have been hit hard, with the three Michigan-based U.S. producers losing about $6 billion. The trade balance has jumped up and down, but overall is $150 billion more in deficit than in 2024.

* Lost exports and tourism revenue: Tariffing Canadian products — concentrated in industrial supplies such as fertilizer, aluminum, energy, and lumber — is proving a good way to raise production costs for American manufacturers like the Cleveland Fed’s Ohioans, as well as farmers and building contractors. It’s also damaging the U.S. economy in less obvious ways.  For example, though the Canadian government isn’t retaliating, a lot of Canadians are doing so individually. The Cleveland Fed’s Boston cousins, in their own, September Beige Book, point to a sharp drop in Canadian tourist visits as a blow to the northern New England economy: Maine got 1.1 million Canadian visitors in the summer of 2024, and a third less —780,000 – this summer. Kentucky and California get similar unexpected shocks, with exports of bourbon and wines down by half this year, as Canadians seek out recognizably “American” things so as not to buy them.

The Census hasn’t yet published August trade data, so we don’t know what happened vis-à-vis Brazil that month. It’s likely, though, that the main cost increases come in agricultural products — particularly coffee and orange juice — and that lost exports will be most painful in Texas and Florida. Texas is the top exporter to Brazil at $11.6 billion; Florida is most Brazil-reliant, with Brazilian customers buying a fifth of Florida’s $11 billion in aerospace exports, half of its $2.4 billion in semiconductors, and a third of its $1.6 billion in agricultural chemicals.

* Unhappy public: The public reaction, based on polling, is pretty negative and (depending on the pollster) either steadily bad throughout or bad at the start and worse since. The Washington Post’May survey, for example, reported 64% of Americans disapproving and 34% approving, and an identical 64/34 split in September. Fox News’ poll differs a bit, finding slightly less unhappiness early on, but a deteriorating trend over time towards a September finding like the Post’s: 53%-28% disapproval in March, 57%-28% disapproval in June, 63%-36% disapproval in September.

Last thought: The administration’s decrees this year have different targets and varying pretexts. Their effects are more uniform: unfounded claims of threat, real-world harm to U.S. industry and consumers, and unpopularity. In terminating them, the Senate can do some real-world good, but also fulfill a more basic, abstract, and important responsibility.

To state the obvious, when presidents — in the U.S. or anywhere else in the world — try to declare states of emergency and rule by decree, it’s a bad sign. The public is right to oppose it. And in the U.S. specifically, the Constitution unambiguously gives Congress authority over “Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises.” An American president who wants a higher tariff rate should therefore ask Congress to pass a bill. If he or she tries to impose this tariff rate alone, Congress should stop him, as Sens. Wyden, Paul, Kaine, et. al. propose to do this month.

FURTHER READING

PPI’s four principles for response to tariffs and economic isolationism:

  • Defend the Constitution and oppose rule by decree;
  • Connect tariff policy to growth, work, prices and family budgets, and living standards;
  • Stand by America’s neighbors and allies;
  • Offer a positive alternative.

Law:

The relevant three decrees: Canada on February 1, worldwide on April 2, and Brazil on July 30.

Data:

IMF’s sunny October 2024 outlook.

… and the chilly October 2025 reprise.

Census Bureau trade data, with no October release due to the current “government shutdown.”

Around the country:

The Boston Fed’s September Beige Book notes falling Canadian tourism in northern New England.

And the Cleveland Fed’s September Beige Book has Ohio manufacturers, retail, and hospitals all facing higher costs and expecting prices to rise.

Read the full email and sign up for the Trade Fact of the Week.

Manno for Forbes: The AI Jobs Debate, Simplified: From Doom To Design

Human Choices Will Decide What Happens To Jobs

Almost daily, new headlines claim that artificial intelligence will either destroy work as we know it or usher us into a golden age of human creativity. Both stories contain a grain of truth. But the binary options of apocalypse or utopia miss the real force that produces the outcome: human choices. How employers redesign jobs, how policymakers steer adoption, and how quickly people learn new skills will matter more than any technical milestone.

To cut through the noise, here are five AI and jobs story lines on a spectrum from “machines take over” to “humans level up.” This spectrum approach may help us communicate with each other in more nuanced ways rather than arguing past each other.

Read more in Forbes. 

‘Only Yesterday’: Comparing ‘Smoot-Hawley’ in 1930 with ‘IEEPA’ and ‘232’ in 2025

Thank you very much. I’m very honored to be here this afternoon and really thank Barbara and Bob for inviting me to talk with you today.  

We have a very useful question here: as we think about the Trump administration’s tariff increases this year and try to understand its likely impacts, economic modeling helps. Polling helps, as do reports from businesses and official data. But we have no recent experience with similar here or elsewhere. Is it possible then to draw lessons from the further past?  

The last general U.S. tariff increase, the Tariff Act of 1930 — typically known as the “Smoot-Hawley Tariff” for its Congressional authors, Senator Reed Smoot and Rep. Willis Hawley — dates back 95 years. With some cautions I’ll note in a second, I’d like to pose four questions that can help us compare them:

Read the full remarks.

New PPI Report Warns: Private AI Lawsuits Threaten Innovation, Urges States to Reject “Litigation for Profit”

WASHINGTON — As states rush to regulate artificial intelligence (AI), a new white paper from the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) warns that allowing private lawsuits without proof of harm would derail innovation, empower trial lawyers, and undermine responsible governance. “Artificial Intelligence, Not Artificial Litigation,” by PPI Senior Fellow Philip S. Goldberg and AI governance attorney Josh Hansen, urges lawmakers to reject a rising trend: giving private, for-profit attorneys sweeping power to enforce new AI laws.

The authors warn that so-called “private rights of action” would enable speculative lawsuits over AI use, often by uninjured plaintiffs, enriching lawyers at the expense of developers, startups and American competitiveness.

“Law enforcement, particularly over emerging technology such as AI, requires prosecutorial judgment, where governments can investigate the facts and take appropriate steps to protect the public, not for profit lawsuits where private lawyers leverage the regulations to enlarge their own wallets,” said Goldberg. “History has shown that if states turn AI law enforcement over to private attorneys, it is going to incentivize litigation abuse. If we want to lead the world in AI, we must reject legal frameworks that punish innovation instead of protecting consumers.”

Goldberg and Hansen draw lessons from decades of lawsuit abuse under laws like the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act, where lawyers exploited technicalities to extract massive paydays. They argue that similar AI-related provisions would unleash a torrent of class actions untethered from any actual injuries.

Instead, the authors call for:

  • AI law enforcement led by state attorneys general, not private litigants;
  • A clear separation between lawsuits that are intended to compensate wrongfully injured individuals and those needed to police compliance;
  • Strong guardrails to protect AI developers from speculative or duplicative lawsuits.

The report cites bipartisan examples, such as California, Virginia and Colorado, where lawmakers are prioritizing regulatory clarity and flexibility over legal uncertainty. It also highlights how existing laws already empower consumers to sue over AI-related harms, from discrimination to privacy violations, without inviting frivolous claims.

“The stakes on the race over AI are too high to let private lawyers turn AI law enforcement into a for-profit game of bounty hunting,” said Goldberg. “We need clear rules and fair oversight, with the public sector, not private contingency fee lawyers, leading the charge.”

Read and download the report here.

Founded in 1989, PPI is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Find an expert and learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Follow us @PPI

###

Media Contact: Ian OKeefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

Jacoby for Washington Monthly: Estonia in the Crosshairs

It was the kind of display only NATO can mount. Several hundred Italian troops from the alliance’s Baltic air policing mission stood in formation at Estonia’s Ämari Air Base, more than 1,500 miles from home. Some of the world’s most powerful weaponry loomed behind them on the windswept tarmac: an F-35 fighter jet, a SAMP/T air defense missile launcher, a Typhoon Eurofighter, and a CAEW radar surveillance plane.

Just days after three Russian MiG-31 fighter jets violated Estonian airspace, loitering for 12 minutes before being escorted out by NATO aircraft, Italian defense minister Guido Crosetto had flown in to thank the Italian pilots who intercepted the planes. A big bear of a man with a shaved head, he and Estonian defense minister Hanno Pevkur stood together on the runway to announce that Italy would extend its rotational presence in Estonia, leaving its jets and air defense system at Ämari through spring 2026.

“If [the Russians] are looking for a response,” Crosetto declared, “this is it—our strengthened presence here.”

Keep reading in Washington Monthly.

U.S. imports from Russia are up 30% this year, likely to hit $5 billion

FACT: U.S. imports from Russia are up 30% this year, likely to hit $5 billion.

THE NUMBERS: U.S. fertilizer imports,
January – July 2025* –

Total         25.3 million tons
Canada           7.9 million tons
Russia           3.3 million tons
Saudi Arabia           0.8 million tons
Qatar           0.7 million tons
All other         12.7 million tons

* U.S. International Trade Commission Dataweb

WHAT THEY MEAN: 

Secretary of State Marco Rubio used a September 23 NBC appearance to term it “absurd” that some EU countries are still buying Russian energy. As the EU develops a new set of sanctions on Russian use of cryptocurrency, “shadow fleet” oil transport, and banking, the Trump administration has cited these purchases to avoid new sanctions on Russia itself. A day before Rubio’s appearance, though, Politico trade reporter Doug Palmer published a startling find about the United States’ trade with Russia:

“Russia’s fertilizer exports to the United States are rebounding in 2025 after falling in 2023 and 2024, according to Commerce Department data. The data also shows that U.S. imports of Russian enriched uranium and platinum are on their way to higher levels this year. In total, imports from Russia are up nearly 30 percent from 2024, and could reach close to $5 billion by the end of the year.”

Not only have U.S. imports from Russia jumped, but the Russian fertilizer and  specialty metals — mainly platinum-group metals palladium and rhodium, used in catalytic converters, along with the uranium — still arrive duty-free despite the tariffs the Trump administration has imposed on similar goods from allies and other suppliers. Here’s the background:

Before the war in 2021, American purchases from Russia looked like this:

Total         $29.7 billion
Energy         $16.9 billion
Rhodium           $0.7 billion
Palladium           $1.6 billion
Uranium           $0.7 billion
Fertilizer           $1.2 billion
Seafood           $1.1 billion
Diamonds           $0.3 billion
All else           $7.1 billion

Two weeks after Vladimir Putin launched his invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the Biden administration banned Russian energy, diamonds, seafood (mainly Arctic crab), and luxury goods. As they fell to zero, American imports of Russian goods accordingly dropped by 90%, from the $29.7 billion of 2021 to $3.0 billion in 2024. Biden’s team left a couple of holes, though, as it didn’t ban fertilizer or specialty metals. The EU’s Russian imports are down from $174 billion in 2021 to $36 billion.

A week later, Congress withdrew Russia’s ‘Most Favored Nation’ tariff status. Legally, this shifts tariff rates from the generally low ones of the normal, Congressionally authorized tariff schedule to those set in the 1930 “Smoot-Hawley” tariff bill. For most countries, this would be a very big hit, shriveling up the trade that the Biden administration hadn’t already banned. But as we noted at the time, Russia was an unusual exception. The Congressional tariff-writers in 1930 wanted high rates on finished manufactured goods and farm products, but low ones or zero on natural resources and other factory and farm inputs. In practice, that’s mostly what Russia was selling: the ‘non-MFN’ tariffs on fertilizer (see Column 2 here) are all zero, as are those on uranium, palladium, and rhodium. So withdrawal of MFN status didn’t matter for these things.

The Trump administration’s April tariff decrees, meanwhile, exempted Russian goods on the unconvincing grounds that the U.S. already sanctions Russia in other ways. In practice, that means leaving Russian fertilizer and metals duty-free. Mr. Trump’s July 31 decree then taxed identical stuff from other sources at 10% and up: 10% on fertilizer from Saudi Arabia or Qatar, and 15% if it’s from Nigeria, Israel, or Trinidad; 30% on South African palladium and rhodium. (Canadian fertilizer and potash remain duty-free for now under the bruised-but-still-in-force “U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement”.) So Russia is now picking up market share at their expense. In sum, as Palmer notes, imports from Russia are up about 30% this year and are likely accelerating.

Across the Atlantic, meanwhile, the EU — after some strong persuasion of the populist semidemocrats in Hungary and Slovakia, the main European buyers of Russian oil and gas — is supposed to stop buying Russian energy altogether by the end of 2027. Mr. Rubio isn’t wrong to urge them to stop sooner, though it’s hard to see why that means the U.S. should hold back on financial and shipping sanctions. And with U.S. imports of Russian fertilizer and metals jumping this year, Europeans aren’t alone in earning adjectives like “absurd.”

FURTHER READING

PPI’s four principles for response to tariffs and economic isolationism:

  • Defend the Constitution and oppose rule by decree;
  • Connect tariff policy to growth, work, prices and family budgets, and living standards;
  • Stand by America’s neighbors and allies;
  • Offer a positive alternative.

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty on new EU sanctions proposals.

On NBC last month, Sec. Rubio’s strong words for European buyers of Russian energy.

… and a day earlier, Palmer reports for Politico Pro (subs. req.) on rising U.S. fertilizer and metal imports from Russia.

Policy: 

The Biden administration’s bans on energy, seafood, diamonds, and luxuries.

The EU’s current schedule for ending Russian energy buying.

Data:

Census’ topline summary of U.S.-Russia trade by month.

Finland-based Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air tracks purchasing of Russian energy by country; also see their aggregate totals.

The U.S. Energy Information Agency on U.S. energy production, importing, exporting, and use.

And the U.S. Geological Survey on platinum-group metal uses, reserves, production, and trade.

PPI perspectives:

PPI’s New Ukraine Project, led by Kyiv-based Tamar Jacoby, reports on Ukrainian economic reform, the mood at the front, military industry growth, and more.

Energy and Climate Policy Director Elan Sykes (2023) on American liquefied natural gas as a replacement for European purchases of Russian energy.

And our Trade Fact reminder: Isolationism and appeasement are dangerous.

ABOUT ED

Ed Gresser is Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at PPI.

Ed returns to PPI after working for the think tank from 2001-2011. He most recently served as the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Trade Policy and Economics at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). In this position, he led USTR’s economic research unit from 2015-2021, and chaired the 21-agency Trade Policy Staff Committee.

Ed began his career on Capitol Hill before serving USTR as Policy Advisor to USTR Charlene Barshefsky from 1998 to 2001. He then led PPI’s Trade and Global Markets Project from 2001 to 2011. After PPI, he co-founded and directed the independent think tank ProgressiveEconomy until rejoining USTR in 2015. In 2013, the Washington International Trade Association presented him with its Lighthouse Award, awarded annually to an individual or group for significant contributions to trade policy.

Ed is the author of Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy (2007). He has published in a variety of journals and newspapers, and his research has been cited by leading academics and international organizations including the WTO, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund. He is a graduate of Stanford University and holds a Master’s Degree in International Affairs from Columbia Universities and a certificate from the Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union.

Read the full email and sign up for the Trade Fact of the Week.

Ainsley for The Liberal Patriot: Can Liberal Patriotism Save Britain From the National Populists?

Under pressure from the national populists and a restless party, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has come out fighting. His landmark speech to the Labour Party Conference in Liverpool last week gave his premiership more definition than ever before, firmly in the mold of the modern liberal patriot.

It is political definition that has never been more needed. On the eve of its annual conference, Labour had been rattled by authoritative constituency-level polling showing that its landslide victory just a year ago would be wiped out by right-wing challenger party Reform UK, taking two-thirds of Labour’s MPs with it. 267 Labour MPs, many newly elected, would lose their seats. The British Conservatives would win just 45 constituencies. Reform UK would eat up former Labour and Tory support with 306 gains, putting leader Nigel Farage on course to be the next Prime Minister.

Of course there is no general election imminent, with the next national vote expected in four years, but together with internal rumblings about Starmer’s leadership, it set the backdrop for a bumpy few days at the Labour annual conference after a bumpier first year since Labour returned to power after fourteen years in opposition.

Keep reading in The Liberal Patriot.

The “Farm Bill High”: How a Hemp Oversight Sparked a Gray-Market Boom

When Congress passed the 2018 Farm Bill, the goal was to help farmers — not to create a new way to get high. Lawmakers from agricultural states pushed to legalize industrial hemp, a non-intoxicating cousin of cannabis, to boost rural economies through new products like rope, textiles, and building materials. The slogan at the time, “Rope, not dope,” made clear the intent: promote agriculture, not open the door to recreational THC.

But that door was left cracked open — and an entire industry has rushed through it.

A gap in the law has spawned a booming gray market for hemp-derived intoxicants. These products — THC-infused gummies, vapes, and seltzers — deliver the same high as more traditional marijuana but are being sold in convenience stores and online, often with no age checks, no potency limits, and no safety standards. They can mimic candy or soda, blurring the line between snack and drug. In some states, you can’t buy a beer until age 21, but a teenager can buy a hemp seltzer with an unknown and unverified amount of THC, no questions asked.

The imbalance is striking. Alcohol is governed by decades of federal and state oversight to prevent abuse and protect public health. Cannabis, where legalized, is tightly regulated through seed-to-sale tracking, child-resistant packaging, and strict potency rules. Yet hemp-derived intoxicants — chemically identical in effect — are being sold in unregulated marketplaces with none of those safeguards. It’s as if the law drew a bright line between similar substances, then forgot to enforce it. Indeed, perhaps most striking is the laissez-faire approach to intoxicating hemp products compared to the strict regulation and accountability measures in place for the sale of tobacco products.

The problem stems from how the 2018 Farm Bill defined hemp as cannabis containing less than 0.3% Delta-9 THC by dry weight. That narrow focus and slippery definition of Delta-9 ignored the potential for other intoxicating cannabinoids — like Delta-8 and Delta-10 — to be synthesized from hemp extracts. Lab innovation quickly outpaced legislation, producing a wave of semi-synthetic THC products that exploit the legal gray zone. The body can’t tell whether THC comes from hemp or marijuana — the effects are the same.

Despite the perception that these products are “federally legal,” the FDA has repeatedly stated they are not approved for human consumption and violate the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Yet with little enforcement, the market has exploded, leaving states to craft a patchwork of responses. Some have imposed bans or testing requirements, while others have looked the other way, creating confusion for consumers, retailers, and law enforcement alike.

This unregulated marketplace undermines both consumer safety and fair competition. Responsible cannabis businesses face stringent taxes, ID checks, and packaging rules. Meanwhile, hemp-derived THC operators pay no excise taxes, face no potency limits, and market directly to young people. In contrast to common sales of state-legalized cannabis in dispensaries, local media reports show unregulated intoxicating hemp appearing on shelves next to all sorts of food and beverage items, holiday decorations, and even toys.  Legitimate hemp farmers — the very people the Farm Bill aimed to support — now find their industry associated with unregulated intoxicants rather than sustainable crops.

Congress has a chance to fix this mistake. Both the House and Senate versions of the FY26 Agriculture Appropriations bills include language to close the “intoxicating hemp loophole.” This isn’t about banning hemp — it’s about restoring the Farm Bill’s original purpose and aligning the law with scientific reality. Hemp should be treated as the agricultural commodity lawmakers intended, not as a legal fiction for manufacturing unregulated THC.

Regulatory clarity isn’t just a matter of bureaucracy — it’s a matter of public trust. When cannabis and hemp are regulated under completely different standards despite producing the same psychoactive effects, consumers lose confidence, and public safety suffers. Congress can — and should — bring sanity and consistency back to hemp policy before the “Farm Bill high” spins even further out of control.

Artificial Intelligence, Not Artificial Litigation

United States-based companies have become world leaders in generative artificial intelligence (AI), which is transforming our lives—from creating better health care diagnostics and treatment to spurring new areas of economic growth. However, even when developed, deployed and used properly, AI can make mistakes. And, some people will use AI for nefarious purposes. These dynamics have led federal and state governments to actively consider how best to regulate generative AI to reduce these risks without impeding the pathways to innovation.

The federal government started this regulatory effort in 2023 with an Executive Order instructing agencies to develop policies to strike this balance. The current President built on this Order by prioritizing an environment in which American AI innovation can flourish. In the states, Colorado became the first to enact a broad AI-specific law in 2024, giving the state attorney general authority to issue AI regulations. This year, Texas adopted a narrower framework. In addition, the California General Assembly passed an AI bill last year, but Governor Newsom vetoed it, opting to allow more time to get this balance right. Governor Youngkin in Virginia did the same this year. In other states, major AI bills have been introduced, but none have been enacted.

Given the economic and national security imperative with AI, state leaders from both political parties have appreciated that getting AI regulation right is critical and that doing the wrong thing poses a risk to the nation as a whole. They have also made clear that while AI may be new, it is just a tool. The fraudulent, unfair or deceptive use of AI—just as with any other software—is already unlawful. State law enforcement officers already have the tools to protect their people.

Accordingly, one of the most controversial ideas making the rounds in the states is introducing what has been called “vigilante actions” or, in legal terminology, private rights of action, for AI enforcement. In these suits, private, for-profit lawyers—not government prosecutors—would be allowed to sue anyone they claim violated the law, regardless of how speculative the assertion or whether anyone was harmed. The lawyers would then keep the statutory penalties for themselves.

Federal and state policymakers have learned the hard lesson that when private lawyers can make money enforcing regulations, they do not necessarily make decisions that are in the public interest. They will often generate high-dollar litigation over minor, technical violations—including when the alleged violation did not harm anyone and even when the violation may not have actually occurred. When similar private rights of action have been included in other regulatory regimes, their trail has been littered with these types of abusive lawsuits, as well as settlements focused on generating money for lawyers, not providing value to consumers, employees or anyone else.

This white paper details the history of private rights of action, how they have led to lawsuit abuse, and why they are neither needed, nor appropriate for regulating AI. Private litigation should stay in its lane. It should be reserved only for seeking remedies for people injured from alleged wrongdoing. And, as Massachusetts Attorney General Campbell made clear last year, people already have robust avenues for seeking such remedies when it comes to AI. Creating more ways for private lawyers to sue over AI is not needed and will cause more harm than good.

Read the full paper here. 

Kahlenberg in Washington Monthly: Who deserves opportunity in Trump’s America?

In his latest piece for the Monthly, legal scholar Rick Kahlenberg wrote about the College Board’s shameful termination of “Landscape,” a college recruiting tool designed to identify promising students from low-income communities, regardless of their race. Rick called it “the worst kind of capitulation” to Trump.

What’s significant about Rick’s stance is that he’s among the nation’s most prominent opponents of race-based affirmative action in college admissions. In fact, he testified against the practice in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard—the landmark Supreme Court case that made racial preferences in college admissions illegal.

Rick argues that race-neutral admissions policies are not only acceptable but should even be encouraged. The result would be more diversity, but on terms that Americans believe fair. Trump, on the other hand, is waging war on diversity itself.

Read more in The Washington Monthly.

Marshall in CNN: How Today’s Democratic Soul-Searching Echoes the Clinton Era

Will Marshall, who has served as the Progressive Policy Institute’s president since its founding, says so many efforts are competing that none is likely to exert as much concentrated influence as the DLC did in its heyday. (The DLC itself officially closed its doors in 2011 but faded as a force in the party after Clinton left office 10 years earlier.) “If you wanted to show that you were a reform-minded Democrat, a modernizing Democrat, you joined up with the DLC and it was really the only enterprise dedicated to changing the party’s governing agenda,” Marshall said. “Now you have a slew of so-called centrist groups that are out there operating independently, and it’s all very disjointed.”

Marshall, like others I spoke with, sees another big obstacle for today’s efforts — these projects are primarily led by consultants and strategists. The DLC, he notes, was defined mostly by elected officials representing politically swing constituencies. That contrast, Marshall says, will make it harder to move these ideas into the party mainstream.

“We had a large cadre of credible Democratic figures-governors, senators, House members, state leaders-who embraced the mission of the new Democrats because they could feel the ground shaking under their feet,” Marshall said. Winning buy-in from large numbers of elected Democrats will be harder today, he says, “because the party is so shrunken, and the number of competitive seats is so shrunken, that the Democrats left standing are mostly safe.”

Keep reading in CNN.

Marshall for The Hill: Democrats Need Tough Liberals Like Bobby Kennedy

Bending laws and norms to the breaking point, President Trump is ordering political show trials of critics, stifling free speech, subjecting Spanish-speaking citizens to police state tactics and choking our economy with tariffs.

Trump’s MAGA followers greet his autocratic power grabs with vindictive glee — finally, we’re on top! Everyone else is asking: Where are the Democrats?

The party establishment seems adrift, unwilling to make a clean break with flawed policies like Bidenomics, climate alarmism and tolerance of illegal immigration and social disorder that have thoroughly alienated working class voters.

Democrats need a new breed of leader — liberals tough enough to challenge progressive orthodoxies and move the party back to the  political mainstream.

For inspiration, they could do worse than look back to Sen. Bobby Kennedy’s (D-N.Y.)1968 presidential campaign. Although tragically cut short by an assassin’s bullet, Kennedy’s run offers Democrats valuable clues for building a bigger, cross-class coalition.

Keep reading in The Hill.