On October 1, the Treasury Department issued proposed rules for the new federal scholarship tax credit (FSTC). That same day, I wrote about how I and others had misinterpreted the implications of the Treasury’s incorporation of a definition of school from the Coverdell ESA law, which defines qualified expenses for the FSTC.

The proposed rules state, “The term school has the definition set forth in section 530(b)(3)(B) and any guidance issued thereunder.” The referenced law says, “The term ‘school’ means any school which provides elementary education or secondary education (kindergarten through grade 12), as determined under State law.” Most observers have taken this to mean homeschoolers in states that don’t define it as a school would not be eligible. 

Read the rest of this post →

America has big plans. Getting permission to build a big project is another story. The new Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026, or BAAJA (pronounced like, and just as bold and refreshing as, Mountain Dew’s Baja Blast), aims to remove political barriers that keep projects on hold. Senators Capito (R‑WV), Lee (R‑UT), Whitehouse (D‑RI), and Heinrich (D‑NM) introduced the bill text—a whopping 417 pages—on September 30. BAAJA builds on previous reform efforts, such as Manchin-Barrasso’s EPRA in 2024 and this term’s SPEED and PERMIT Acts. Unlike earlier efforts, BAAJA is already gaining strong bipartisan support, giving it a fighting chance to clear the Senate’s 60-vote requirement when it reconvenes the week of November 9. 

This moment is different for myriad reasons—electricity demand growth is reaching levels not seen this century, costly Biden-era energy subsidies have mostly been cut or curtailed, and Democrats now understand how much damage a president can inflict when he despises certain forms of energy. The Keystone XL oil pipeline was the poster child for Democrats’ arbitrary cancellation of major energy projects under Presidents Obama and Biden, and Trump has spent his second term applying the same playbook to solar and wind projects. 

Read the rest of this post →

Lewis Carroll’s fantasy novels about Alice’s adventures have many virtues; one such virtue is that they regularly help explain the Trump administration. Indeed, one episode in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass — his sequel to Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland — illuminates an important aspect of politics and human nature. 

Here’s what happens: As Alice is walking through a deep forest, she suddenly realizes that she cannot recall the proper name of anything. She cannot recall that a tree is called a tree; she cannot even recall her own name. She then encounters a fawn and places an arm lovingly around it, and the two of them walk through the forest together as they talk about how they can no longer recall any names at all. Then they step out of the woods into an open field; at that moment, they remember who they are. The fawn remembers that it is a fawn — and that fawns must fear humans — and runs away in fright. 

In a press conference last week, our vice president displayed such forgetfulness. In J.D. Vance’s discussion of new restrictions on H‑1B eligibility, he was asked what he understood “socialism” to be. He responded:

Read the rest of this post →

Recently, the proliferation of automated license plate readers (ALPRs)—led by private surveillance vendors like Flock, Axon, Motorola, and Verkada—has come under increased public scrutiny. Proponents of ALPRs—which I call “Flockers”—insist that the mass surveillance dragnet merely tracks public movements and is an indispensable crime-fighting tool. But Americans are rightly skeptical. 

And late last month, a federal jury in San Antonio shot back at the “Flockers.” 

On behalf of the Institute for Justice client, Alek Schott, 12 ordinary citizens found Bexar County liable for operating an unconstitutional mass-surveillance regime. The scheme was as predictable as it was abusive: ALPRs logged travel patterns and flagged a Houston father as suspicious. A sheriff’s deputy then manufactured a pretextual traffic violation on I‑35 to interrogate Schott, prolong his detention, and search his vehicle using a Probable Cause Creating (PCC) dog. The jury properly awarded Schott exactly what he asked for—$76, representing one dollar for each minute he was unlawfully detained.

Read the rest of this post →

Russia is escalating its war against Ukraine, killing at least 30 Ukrainian civilians during an October 8 glide bomb attack on two public buses. Rightly, most of the world is outraged. Civilians, tragically, are always killed in wars. But deliberately targeting them is another thing altogether. What this outrage means, unfortunately, is that this war will not end anytime soon. 

Anger is a major catalyst for wars, and Ukrainians are angry. It’s unclear what the Kremlin’s calculation was in carrying out this strike, perhaps chalked up to growing desperation on the Russian side. Yet bombing civilians doesn’t break a people’s morale and will to fight; in fact, such acts usually strengthen that will. 

This is a messy war that will require a messy peace deal. It won’t happen quickly like the Trump administration prefers, and it won’t end by pursuing either of two extremes: flattering Putin or threatening him. The answer lies somewhere in between. Compromise on all sides—Russian, Ukrainian, European, and American—is necessary. Maybe an arbiter other than the United States is needed to help settle this war. 

What is clear, however, is that the Kremlin’s decision to bomb civilians will not bring this war any closer to ending. 

On Wednesday, October 7, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D‑WA) released an outline for AI regulation that spells out six principles that she believes “must drive the legislative and executive actions needed to address catastrophic risks and other AI harms.” As the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, her word on what the next AI policy priorities should be is a sign of what the Democratic Party seeks to achieve through AI regulation. The framework spans a broad range of topics, from federal standards for AI development and transparency and disclosure requirements to youth safety and international cooperation agreements. 

Some proposals in this outline draw and build on ideas already circulating in legislative text or rumored to appear in forthcoming bills, which could indicate that Congress might start coalescing around a potential framework. A broad framework will naturally have both positive proposals and notable flaws. As with any AI framework, Cantwell’s proposal has strengths and weaknesses. As members of Congress look for ways to translate overlapping ideas into tangible legislation, they should be aware of the nuances that could turn benign policies into harmful regulations.