Libertarian magazine covering politics, culture, and ideas with a focus on free markets and individual liberty.
A photo of President Donald Trump superimposed with images of a birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein and a Wall Street Journal story about the letter
Could a court likewise order, say, Gmail to cut off a person's access to his Gmail account, if there's reason to think the person has misused that account for criminal purposes? Does it matter that the person isn't a party to the proceeding, and thus can't assert his free speech rights?
Peter Suderman appears on the left, Matt Welch appears on the right. An image of a U.S. warship at sea appears in the center square. Bold text across the top reads "WHAT HAVE WE WON?"
Here are the latest developments in the Middle East war: - Trump to address nation - US President Donald Trump will address Americans on the Iran war later Wednesday, his first prime-time speech since the conflict began, as his approval ratings plunge and economic anxiety rises. The White House gave no details on the address, but it comes hours after Trump claimed Iran had sought a pause in hostilities, and that fighting could be over in "two weeks, maybe three". - Iran denies it seeks ceasefire
Another example of the risks of relying upon AI tools to assist in legal research
A Eurocopter AS565 Panther helicopter transports cargo to the flight deck of Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) during a replenishment-at-sea with Lewis and Clark-class dry cargo ship USNS Carl Brashear (T-AKE-7) in support of Operation Epic Fury, March 18, 2026
The Trump administration's highly-anticipated recommendations for Congress on AI offer lawmakers a list of priorities rather than a concrete legislative plan. Why it matters: Though the framework marks a starting point from the White House, it will be incredibly hard for Congress to pass anything like it — even with Republicans in control. Disagreements over AI policy go well beyond Republican vs. Democrat, and they overlap with broader tech policy debates that Congress has never been able to solve. Friction point: The four-page framework calls on lawmakers to limit the ability of states to set their own rules for the technology, setting up a renewed clash with states and Congress over the future of AI regulation. It's not tied to any specific bills and doesn't resolve longstanding issues around protecting kids and overriding state law. What's inside: The framework says Congress should "preempt state AI laws that impose undue burdens to ensure a minimally burdensome national standard consistent with these recommendations, not fifty discordant ones." The proposal calls on Congress to: Address the use of AI replicas that simulate someone's likeness or voice.Codify President Trump's pledge to require tech companies to pay for their increased energy demands.Establish "regulatory sandboxes" to allow developers to experiment with AI under relaxed rules. It also focuses on kids' online safety: "AI services and platforms must take measures to protect children, while empowering parents to control their children's digital environment and upbringing," the framework states. Our thought bubble: It's a sign that this move is about the White House staking out a position and pointing to the framework as a demonstration it tried to set the rules of the road, rather than advancing a bill. The White House's biggest efforts on AI policy are focused on squashing state efforts to regulate the technology. Between the lines: The framework says the Trump administration "believes that traini
"Market Erasure," "Three Plinths," "The March 2nd Transformation," "Karen" "branding," and "The Commercially Savvy Lawyer."
A whiskey distilling set up in front of the preamble to the United States Constitution
Petitioner's new-found "public figure" status, and concerns that records are "impeding his employment, professional credibility, and personal safety," don't justify sealing, either
US President Donald Trump’s tariffs returned to court on Friday, as a three-judge Court of International Trade panel in New York sharply questioned both sides while weighing the legality of a new set of tariffs he imposed in February, shortly after a Supreme Court ruling declared most of his sweeping levies unlawful. While the judges offered few clues on how they might rule on the Section 122 tariffs, the court has previously rejected business challenges seeking to invalidate Section 301 tariffs