President Trump has made quite a splash in the policy space in his second term.
Good evening,
President Trump has made quite a splash in the policy space in his second term. I applauded his executive order to diminish the federal Department of Education, and his Administration’s work to cut reckless spending and waste through DOGE was a long-needed action for the federal government. While these actions were based on reducing the size and influence of the federal government, President Trump’s actions on trade and tariffs do not.
Increasingly, American political history seems driven by “negation rather than contradiction”, not a contest of ideas, but a nihilistic rejection of the status quo.
In this vein, both major U.S. parties have embraced protectionist trade policies – not out of conviction, but as a response to political fatigue and public distrust, resulting in symbolic gestures rather than sound strategy.
For example, recent developments in negotiations with both China and the European Union have demonstrated how much personal spectacle, rather than structured policy, now dominates critical economic diplomacy.
Trump is not alone in this aspect. Despite its rhetorical opposition, the Biden Administration quietly kept them in place (even increased them, in some cases).
This convergence is not about trade; it’s about legitimacy and competence. Tariffs have become a substitute for real results: they perform action without solving problems.
For decades, Americans have been fed grand political promises with little to show for them. President George W. Bush pledged that “no child” would be left behind, yet academic outcomes remain stagnant. President Barack Obama touted “shovel-ready” stimulus projects, only to later admit they weren’t so shovel-ready after all. Across the political spectrum, citizens are losing faith, not in capitalism or the postwar liberal order, as some claim, but in the chronic overpromising of politicians who often pledge what a constitutional government was never meant to deliver. The resulting backlash isn’t ideological, it’s existential. Voters aren’t demanding radical change; they’re demanding credibility.
Constitutionally, Congress, not the executive, has the power to regulate trade, but years of legislative inaction and delegation of authority have led the public to believe the President can act unilaterally.
And as many working-class Americans search for a shield against destabilizing economic forces like automation or global supply chains, splashy proclamations of tariffs offer an appealing elixir.
Protectionism endures because it offers the illusion that the federal government can control the global economy. It signals strength. But it also raises consumer prices, disrupts supply chains, invites retaliation, and weakens our global competitiveness. It is not a long-term strategy — it is a short-term sedative.
Economic and fiscal conservatives must reclaim the politics of persuasion — a politics willing to make the difficult case for free markets, open exchange, and limited government. Until we do, protectionism will endure, not as a strategy but as a surrender to decay.
You can read more about the impact of tariffs on North Carolina and their constitutional questionability here, here, and here.
Chief District Judge Richard Myers ordered that the Supreme Court race be certified after a one-week stay to allow for appeals
While Jefferson Griffin has the right to appeal the decision, it would likely be rejected by the federal court of appeals
Myers’ ruling focused on the state courts’ rulings, rather than the interpretation of the ruling by the state board of elections
The ruling concluded that these rights were violated in three separate instances:
“Retroactive invalidation of absentee ballots cast by overseas military and civilian voters violates those voters’ substantive due process rights.”
“The cure process violates the equal protection rights of overseas military and civilian voters.”
“The lack of any notice or opportunity for eligible voters to contest their mistaken designation as “never residents” violates procedural due process and represents an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.”
Myers rightfully concluded that retroactive and selective changes to state law violate voters’ due process and equal protection rights
This is due to post facto rule changes for voter ID requirements for overseas voters
The ruling does not block the challenging of individual voters for irregularities, but requires that challenges to larger issues be applied equally
No due process issues were found with the state’s ruling of “never residents”
This appears to be a response that at least 30 of the voters challenged as “never residents” have a viable residency claim
This ruling will likely dull the precedent set by state courts, which encourages challengers to wait until they know the results of an election to file legal challenges
Right now, it’s technically illegal to buy and sell raw milk in North Carolina
However, many get around this legal hurdle with “cow-share agreements", where people buy a share of a cow and get part of its milk
The North Carolina Farm Act of 2025 (Senate Bill 639) would outlaw this legal method of obtaining raw milk
However, another bill, House Bill 609, would do the opposite and legalize buying raw milk directly from farmers and farm stands
The bill provides for safety standards, including regular pathogen testing, annual veterinary inspections, sanitation and refrigeration standards, and health warning labels on raw milk products
While the debate around raw milk focuses on fear of airborne illnesses, there is evidence to support some health benefits of raw milk consumption
Consuming raw milk has been correlated with decreased rates of asthma, allergies, eczema, ear infections, fevers, and respiratory infections
Raw milk has also been observed to improve digestion and immune function
Ultimately, raw milk is no riskier than eating sushi, rare steak, or raw oysters
The process proposed by HB 609 would be a sensible, bipartisan solution, regulating raw milk like other parts of our food system
This would lead to better safety standards, consumer education, and access
As debates over the 2025 farm bill continue, North Carolinians need to speak out in defense of cow-share agreements and raw milk sales
Our farmers deserve clarity, and our families deserve choice
For Democrats and left-wing groups, a significant amount of their “dark money” comes from the Arabella Network
Arabella Advisors is a philanthropic consulting company that oversees a handful of nonprofits that focus on left-leaning priorities, which provided nearly $1 billion in grants for left-wing priorities in 2023
The Arabella Network receives substantial financial support from other left-wing organizations, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation
Since their organizations are technically nonprofits, and not campaign groups, they are also allowed to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign contributions
And while 501(c)(3) foundations can’t give to 501(c)(4) organizations engaging in direct lobbying and endorsement directly, the Arabella Network transfers funds amongst itself to obscure donations and find loopholes
North Carolina is increasingly seen as a prized pick-up for many on the political left
In North Carolina, the Arabella Network has provided nearly $56 million in funding to organizations since 2015
And in 2020, Arabella Advisors opened up its fifth office in Durham
The group is setting up “news organizations” with “curated coverage” that are made to look like legitimate news organizations
They are also funding left-wing networks like Blueprint NC, which acts as a coalition for the state’s left-leaning organizations, and is most famous for its leaked memo in 2013 calling to “eviscerate, mitigate, litigate, cogitate and agitate”
If history is any indication, when tax filings for 2024 are released, it would not be a surprise to see Arabella Network’s spending in North Carolina to have increased even further
