Don’t Mourn the Washington Post’s Decline

Information is richer and more accessible than ever

Letter to The WSJ.

"I have a lot of respect for Peggy Noonan, and I share her view expressed in “A Lament for the Washington Post” (Declarations, Feb. 7) that a robust, inquisitive press is an essential part of a functioning democracy. But I don’t see the end of the Washington Post (if that’s what happens) as much of a loss.

The journalism practiced by the Post in recent years has mainly been of the sort lately taught in journalism schools. Woke, ideological, biased—a loyal ally of the Democratic party. It told us Russia-gate was real, ignored Joe Biden’s decline, hewed unquestioningly to the establishment line on Covid, and reportedly had at least a dozen reporters covering climate change, all reporting the same deeply flawed story as “settled science.” The death of that sort of journalism is something to celebrate, not mourn.

The information ecosystem is vastly richer and more accessible than ever. There is plenty of misinformation on social media. But it also conveys facts, often supported by real-time video, and instantaneous access to underlying truth. You can read the report, watch the congressional hearing, listen to the cockpit voice recording. It’s all there, in real time. This is the way to hold government accountable.

Ms. Noonan is right to call out the media executives leading Big News for their failure to adjust to the technological realities of the 21st century. But most of them fail because they are incumbents, not new entrants, managers, not entrepreneurs. They lack the vision to imagine a path forward and the incentive to change.

Journalism, like any other craft, is constantly evolving. In every era it has had strengths and weaknesses, virtues and faults. The reality is that every human being sees the world through his own unique lens. Better to live in a world where freedom of expression is ubiquitous than one where the “truth” is told to us by a few ennobled journalists.

Jeff Eisenach

Nonresident senior fellow

American Enterprise Institute" 

Who Pays for Trump’s Tariffs? Americans Do

It’s U.S. companies and consumers, not foreigners, that bear most of the economic burden

Letter to The WSJ.

"Peter Navarro’s “Foreign Countries Bear the Burden of Tariffs” (Letters, Feb. 11) on foreigners indirectly paying U.S. tariffs is correct in theory yet detached from reality.

If the U.S. actually had the market power he describes, foreign exporters would in many cases lower their prices to keep selling their goods here, thus offsetting the tariffs’ domestic costs. In practice, however, the U.S. hasn’t been hegemonic in global markets for many years, thanks to the proliferation of regional supply chains and growing economies outside our borders.

Given the relatively low and declining U.S. share of global merchandise trade, economists predicted in 2024 that producers abroad would respond to U.S. tariffs not by lowering their prices here but by diverting trade elsewhere and forcing Americans to bear the tariffs’ costs. This is exactly what’s happened. China, for example, saw its U.S. exports decline in 2025 yet had strong overall export growth and a record trade surplus thanks to higher sales in other markets.

U.S. nonfuel import prices, which include discounts and rebates but exclude tariffs, would show major declines if exporters were eating Mr. Trump’s tariffs, but they were slightly up in 2025.

Many studies—not only from Harvard and the Kiel Institute, which Mr. Navarro blithely dismisses, but also the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank, the Tax Foundation, economists Gita Gopinath and Brent Neiman, and Goldman-Sachs, among others—have examined real-world transactions and found that U.S. companies and consumers are bearing almost all the tariff burden via higher retail prices or input costs. There are exceptions, but the data confirm they’re not the rule.

Mr. Navarro needn’t, however, read wonky economics papers to see that Americans are paying Mr. Trump’s tariffs (and the higher prices for U.S.-made alternatives that tariffs encourage). Instead, he could ask the thousands of American business owners and farmers who say they’re suffering under the weight of Mr. Trump’s ill-conceived trade wars. They have voiced these concerns in shareholder earnings calls, media interviews, court challenges, bankruptcy filings, regulatory comments and town hall meetings. Hundreds of small-business owners from across the country have even formed a coalition called “We Pay the Tariffs.” These good folks would jump at the chance to go to the White House and tell Mr. Navarro who, exactly, is paying these taxes—if, that is, they had enough lobbying clout to get through the front door.

Scott Lincicome

VP of general economics and trade Cato Institute" 

State accounts of the triumph of the Chinese Communist Party have whitewashed the atrocities that were central to Mao’s rise to power

See ‘Red Dawn Over China’ Review: A Maoist Mythology by Tunku Varadarajan. He reviewed the book "Red Dawn Over China: How Communism Conquered a Quarter of Humanity" by Frank Dikötter. Excerpts:

"Mr. Dikötter sums up the Maoist fable that traces the triumph in 1949 of the Chinese Communist Party, established in 1921 under the direct tutelage of the Bolsheviks in Moscow: “the country is racked by an unholy alliance of ‘imperialist powers’ and ‘reactionary forces,’ the Communists mobilize the ‘peasants’ by taking the land from the rich and distributing it to the poor, then they gradually unite the people in their fight against the Japanese invader and the fascist Nationalist Party.” In the end, “nobody remains standing except Mao, armed with ideological conviction.” The purity of the party’s mission triumphs, and with the liberation of China comes at last the end of an ugly chapter of Chinese history and of a long series of humiliations.

This storyline follows Mao’s “historical vision,” Mr. Dikötter tells us, and is almost entirely bogus. Mao after 1949 has been thoroughly reassessed by historians and is now regarded as a monster by most right-minded people; but views of early Mao—from 1921 until 1949—remain stubbornly rose-tinted. Mr. Dikötter wants us to think again."

"Mr. Dikötter finds evidence of “how marginal the Communist Party was in the history of China” from its inception until the end of World War II."

"In Wuxi, an industrial city west of Shanghai with 100,000 workers, the party had only 25 members in 1929. In April 1927, the province of Zhejiang (population 20 million) had 2,600 members. In the desperately poor province of Gansu (population 6.7 million) in 1939, the party had a mere 264 adherents." 

"many party branches existed only on paper, and that membership statistics were inflated to claim resources from central authorities (bankrolled by Moscow)"

"Before 1940, only one in 1,700 Chinese (itself likely a faked statistic) was a Communist, roughly equivalent to Communist membership in the U.S."

"the Communists took power . . . but through the violent subjugation of China’s countryside and cities. Mr. Dikötter attributes the bulk of their success to Joseph Stalin, who armed and funded them and, in 1945, sent a million-strong army into Manchuria to help the beleaguered Communists. These Soviet troops stayed until May 1946"

"The methods  . . . were simple: scorch the earth and conquer a cowering, starving population."

"they laid siege to towns, burning government buildings, killing so-called ‘class enemies,’ seizing their property and distributing it to the troops.”"

"It was a takeover by havoc and terror."

"“nowhere during the civil war did anyone ever witness people fleeing a region controlled by the [Nationalist] government towards the Communists.” In fact, all flight was in the opposite direction."

"In every village the Communists took, the first task was to divide villagers into landlords, rich peasants, middle peasants, poor peasants and laborers. The next task: “to turn hardship into hatred,” with the poor dispossessing, beating and killing the notionally rich, whose advantage often amounted to a few more sacks of rice, or rudimentary windows on their house." 

These Three Red States Are the Best Hope in Schooling

By Nicholas Kristof. From The New York Times. Excerpts:

"The critiques have been effectively rebutted — for starters, they can’t explain the continuing gains in Mississippi or the magnitude of the gains. Just as striking, the Mississippi gains increasingly are being replicated in Alabama and Louisiana, as they follow similar approaches."

"Schools in Alabama respond firmly when a pupil doesn’t show up. After three unexcused absences, the school suggests a meeting with the parents. After five unexcused absences, school district officials summon parents and warn that they face legal risks if the truancy continues. At seven unexcused absences, the school may refer the parents to the juvenile court."

"These states have created a structure that closely monitors each school’s performance and incentivizes principals and teachers alike to do everything they can to get kids back in class and learning."

"In Mississippi, where the four-year high school graduation rate is now 89 percent, the State Department of Education each year must approve a “dropout prevention plan” from each school district."

"Measurement and metrics are particularly evident in strategies to get children to read by the end of third grade."

"So Dyhlan is pulled out of class along with other lagging readers every day for small-group tutoring in reading. Each child is tested weekly, with scores posted in a green, yellow or red zone, indicating how likely it is that they will pass a big reading test in the spring."

"in 2013, Mississippi adopted a third-grade gate — meaning that all third graders must pass a reading test to advance to fourth grade. The state then set up a system to monitor all students beginning in kindergarten to help get them on track to pass the test. Mississippi also revamped its curriculum, invested in pre-K and set up a system to coach teachers to improve their skills."

"A Black Mississippi child is two and a half times as likely to be proficient in reading by fourth grade as a Black California child."

"Likewise, low-income children are more likely to test proficient in reading in Mississippi or Louisiana than in California, Massachusetts or New York. A low-income fourth grader is almost twice as likely to test proficient at math in Mississippi as in Oregon."

"the Southern surge states lifted student achievement with only modest budgets. Spending per pupil in Alabama and Mississippi was below $12,000 in 2024, while in New York it was almost $30,000."

"A common thread in Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana has been strong educational leadership, which in turn is able to impose a coherent strategy statewide. This includes “science of reading” curriculums, teacher coaching, measurement of student performance and accountability at all levels. In these states, everyone is rowing together; in Northern school systems, in contrast, there may be more oars but these often are pulling in different directions."

"It was easier to undertake these reforms in states like Mississippi that lacked strong teacher unions"

"Douglas N. Harris, an economist and education expert at Tulane University, said that the three states’ success is based in large part on demanding accountability and raising expectations. “Expectations for students, teachers and schools are central,” he said.

“The debate in education is often framed as a tension between excellence and equity,” Harris added. “I reject that. The system already has lower expectations for disadvantaged students. We need high expectations and standards to give them a better chance.”"

"The Southern surge states take an approach that . . . Disadvantaged students get extra help but are pushed to succeed on the same terms as everyone else, for that is what the adult job market will demand."  

Congress should short-circuit the nation’s electric vehicle charging program

By Steve Swedberg of CEI. Excerpt:

"how many EV charging stations has NEVI installed? After all, the NEVI program was enacted in November 2021. The Biden administration was hoping to have 500,000 charging ports installed by 2030. With $5 billion allocated over a five-year period, one would think that NEVI would have established a well-functioning network of EV chargers by now. Here are some estimates as to how many EV chargers have been installed under NEVI:

·      The EV States Clearinghouse, which is co-maintained by the National Association of State Energy Officials and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, has the estimate at 532 charging ports currently open.

·      An industry analysis reported that EV charging data analytics company Paren puts the estimate at 725 ports.

·      The Government Accountability Office calculated that as of April 2025, there were 384 EV charging ports installed under federal government programs. Notably, this figure includes ports from NEVI and another program called the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Grant Program.

Regardless of the estimate used, the number of charging ports installed by the federal government is less than 1,000 and accounts for much less than one percent of the 235,428 charging ports available as of January 2026 and the 500,000 charging ports promised by the Biden administration by 2030. More than four years after enactment, and with billions appropriated, this level of deployment suggests more than ordinary implementation lag. Even a backloaded program would show clearer signs of growth by this point. Instead, NEVI’s output indicates structural bottlenecks embedded in its design rather than temporary startup delays.

Paperwork over power

Even before the Trump administration decided to rescind the existing NEVI Formula Program Guidance and suspend state approvals of deployment plans, NEVI was already floundering in red tape. As of February 6, 2025, which was a few days after USDOT Secretary Sean Duffy was sworn into office, $2.7 billion of the $3.3 billion available in NEVI funds were unobligated. In plain terms, most of the money Congress set aside had not been committed to projects.

According to the center-left think tank Third Way, NEVI’s slow progress is not due to lack of need or funding, but to bureaucratic hurdles. Complex requirements and delayed federal guidance left states navigating red tape instead of building charging stations, highlighting inefficiencies in the program’s design.

The Environmental Law Institute further breaks down these hurdles mentioned by Third Way by showing that NEVI’s deployment delays are baked into the program’s structure. States and contractors must navigate local building approvals, utility interconnection studies, and environmental reviews for each proposed site, which often stalls projects for months before a single charger goes live.

In addition, federal “Buy America” requirements add supply-chain constraints that create additional bottlenecks and increases production costs. Industry groups and state Departments of Transportation have warned that “Buy America” requirements could delay federal EV infrastructure projects due to limited domestic suppliers and complex compliance processes. These intertwined requirements illustrate how well-intentioned federal oversight can transform a supposedly fast-moving infrastructure program into a slow-moving bureaucratic behemoth.

Private sector vs. NEVI deployment timelines

An interesting point of comparison is the project timelines between the private sector and NEVI installations. Industry analysis indicates that regulatory and utility interconnection processes alone commonly add a year to 18 months to the timeline for NEVI‑funded charging projects, well before construction begins. Although all 50 states have submitted and received approval for NEVI EV charging deployment plans, the plans do not include uniform benchmarks for how long it takes from award to station operation. Arizona expected it to take a year to install once approved, whereas California provides a range of one to two years.

By contrast, the private sector reports shorter timelines. EV charging financing company Sustainable Capital Finance (SCF) estimates that it can take 3 to 16 months to install an EV charger, whereas EV charging company EVgo puts the figure at 18 months. EV charging stations take time to install, irrespective of red tape. At the same time, these diverging timelines illustrate why the private sector is able to generate tens of thousands of ports in the time that NEVI has installed fewer than 1,000 ports. 

Daren Bakst, director of CEI’s Center for Energy and Environment, has noted this discrepancy reflects a broader principle: states and private actors ultimately determine where and when chargers are built, and government mandates cannot substitute for market-driven deployment. In fact, Bakst highlighted that even with billions allocated to NEVI, no chargers had yet been installed at the time of his analysis in December 2023. This insight reinforces the idea that federal intervention cannot reliably accelerate infrastructure deployment.

Beyond regulatory red tape, NEVI has been hampered by predictable governance failures that exacerbate the timeline issues. For example, a federal court recently ruled that the US Department of Transportation unlawfully froze congressionally appropriated NEVI funds, which forced states to litigate simply to access money already authorized by law. Such administrative paralysis is not an anomaly. It is a predictable outcome when a program centralizes decision-making in federal agencies subject to shifting priorities, complex compliance rules, and political interference.

NEVI spending fails the traveler

Despite a $5 billion commitment made in 2021 to build a nationwide EV charging network, there are fewer than 1,000 operational charging ports. This amount represents a miniscule fraction of the ports already available nationwide, and more importantly, the amount promised by the Biden administration. The Government Accountability Office highlights how NEVI lacks clear performance goals or benchmarks, meaning policymakers cannot even track whether NEVI is meeting its intended outcomes. Combined with bureaucratic hurdles, slow deployment, and small scale of charging ports at this stage, it becomes difficult to argue that NEVI is doing anything of substance to positively contribute to transportation infrastructure.

At the same time, private companies continue to expand the EV charging network across the US and often complete projects in a matter of months instead of years. History has shown that building a nationwide network of fueling infrastructure does not require subsidies. Gas stations achieved this growth organically in the 20th century without subsidies. Those same market forces can drive and already have been driving EV charger deployment."

Tariffs as Fiscal Policy

From Jeffrey Miron.

"President Trump has claimed his tariffs will raise enough revenue to allow for income tax cuts.

Recent research, however, finds that even at optimal tariff rates, these tariffs

would raise an amount less than one-fifth of federal income tax revenue … generat[ing] efficiency losses nearly equal to the revenue raised.

Tariffs are also

regressive … [and] today’s tariffs are particularly high, variable, and uncertain. This raises compliance costs, reduces investment, creates serious tax administration problems, and encourages corruption and wasteful lobbying efforts.

Lastly, while tariffs do reduce imports, they also reduce exports and invite retaliatory tariffs, which in turn harm US manufacturers.

Tariffs are a blunt instrument that—even without the current volatility, but even more with it—cause efficiency losses, increase compliance costs, and harm the industries they allegedly help."

There is no evidence that time spent on social media is correlated with adolescent mental health problems

See The mainstream view by Tyler Cowen.

"Multiple studies have either shown that smartphone and social media use among teens has minimal effects on their mental health or none at all. As a 2024 review published by an American Psychological Association journal put it: “There is no evidence that time spent on social media is correlated with adolescent mental health problems.”

And this:

Advocates of bans compare social media to alcohol or tobacco, where the harms are indisputable and the benefits are minimal. But the internet, including social media, is more analogous to books, magazines or television. I may not want my sons watching “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre” or reading “Fifty Shades of Grey,” but it would be crazy to ban books and films for kids altogether.

But that is the nature of these social media bans. Australia’s law not only restricted access to platforms such as Instagram and TikTok but also banned kids under 16 from having YouTube, X and Reddit accounts. Even Substack had to modify its practices.

Here is more from the excellent Sam Bowman.  And many teens make money through “digital side hustles,” in this day and age that is what a teenage job often means."