Milton Friedman Was Right About Monetary Fine-Tuning

Time for Congress To Make the Right To Carry a National Right

J.D. Vance Hates Milton Friedman

Socialism is ascendant within both political parties.

Trump Hypes Tech Company Right After Buying Stock in It

President Donald Trump is once again hawking a company in which he owns stock. Trump announced Thursday that stock in Micron Technology Inc., a semiconductor company, had leapt nine points on the stock market following the company’s commitment to donate $250 million to the president’s Trump Accounts, the individual savings vehicle for eligible American citizens under age 18.“Thank you Micron!” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Trump’s thanks aren’t just on behalf of America’s children—it seems that the president personally benefited from the stock’s sudden rise. Trump’s recently released financial disclosures from 2025 revealed that the president already owned between $1.67 million and $6.65 million worth of stock in Micron. In March, as the administration was making preparations to launch the Trump Accounts, Trump purchased between $215,000 and $550,000 in Micron stock, according to MeidasTouch. In a press release Tuesday, Micron said the donation was the “largest corporate commitment of its kind.” At the same time, the company is facing a federal class action lawsuit over allegations of collusion and price-fixing with other chip manufacturers.In 2025, the president raked in loads of cash in the stock market by buying or selling a whopping 21,000 times with companies he talks about publicly, such as Nvidia and Intel. And Trump has a history of manipulating the stock market by boosting certain companies on social media. This also isn’t the first time the president has attempted to boost a company tied to Trump Accounts. In December, Dell pledged a $6.2 billion commitment to the accounts. A few months later, Trump purchased at least $1 million in Dell stock, and then went on a rant about buying Dell computers.

The court got party spending right. Foreign money is still the problem

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Tuesday that the federal government cannot cap how much a political party spends in direct coordination with its own candidates. National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission struck down a Federal Election Campaign Act provision that had limited coordinated party expenditures since 1974, overruling the court’s 2001 decision […]

How a radical far-right doctrine triumphed at the Supreme Court: legal scholar

In its 6-3 Trump v. Slaughter ruling released on Monday, June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court's GOP-appointed supermajority decided that President Donald Trump enjoys considerable power when it comes to his ability to fire members of independent regulatory agencies. The ruling rejected the High Court's Humphrey's Executor v. United States precedent of 1935, and Peter M. Shane — a scholar at the New York University School of Law — views Trump v. Slaughter as a major "triumph" for a "radical" far-right doctrine known as the "unitary executive theory."The unitary executive theory, promoted by many MAGA Republicans, favors a very powerful executive branch for the federal government. But critics of the theory, including conservative New York Times columnist David French, see it as unconstitutional and anti-checks and balances.The "Slaughter" in Trump v. Slaughter was Rebecca Slaughter, who Trump fired from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The High Court ruled that Trump was well within her right to fire her.Shane is highly critical of the Robert Court's Trump v. Slaughter ruling, which he sees as a recipe for presidential overreach."In the words of Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote for the majority, the FTC 'unquestionably exercises executive power, and must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested,'" Shane explains. "As a result, he said, Rebecca Slaughter 'served as the President's subordinate at the FTC — and that the President was entitled to cut her tenure short.' In so concluding, the Court explicitly overruled the unanimous 1935 decision Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which held exactly the opposite with regard to the same agency…. The Court's decision extends to all independent regulatory agencies, not just the FTC. Its central premise is that the president is constitutionally entitled to control all exercises of executive power — the 'unitary executive theory.'"Shane continues, "Roberts defined 'executive power' as broadly as is possible: 'When an agency executes a congressional mandate against private parties,' he wrote, 'it exercises executive power — no ifs, ands, or quasis about it.' Because all of the regulatory agencies created by Congress issue rules and orders that affect private parties, they all would appear to exercise executive power within the Roberts definition."Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a Barack Obama appointee, was among the three dissenters in Trump v. Slaughter — and Shane shares her concerns. "It is not hard to imagine how a creative president could use his newfound control over all agencies," Shane writes. "As (Justice Neil) Gorsuch points out, giving presidents unfettered control over the specialized agencies allows a retributive chief executive to launch attacks on his opponents from multiple directions…. A Court tilted against regulation has positioned itself as the ultimate, nondeferential arbiter of when legal challenges to the president are even permissible and whether those challenges have merit. The Court can also tell Congress if measures the legislative branch thought 'necessary and proper' to constrain the executive went too far."Shane continues, "Justice Sonia Sotomayor is certainly correct in stating that 'the result' of Slaughter 'is a President who emerges with far greater power than ever before.' One might, however, say the same about the Roberts Court itself."

Supreme Court Allows Reporter to Be Fined for Failing to Disclose Source

Catherine Herridge, a former Fox News reporter, was held in civil contempt by a lower court after she refused to reveal her sources for articles she wrote about a scientist who was investigated by the F.B.I.

DOJ targets Spanberger, Newsom gun laws with twin lawsuits after SCOTUS affirms Second Amendment rights

The Justice Department sued California and Virginia over state gun restrictions, targeting assault weapons bans and semiautomatic pistol laws.

The Supreme Court Didn’t Just Save Women’s Sports. It Preserved the Legal Rights of Women

The Court determined that biological sex should not give way to gender identity.