American “free market” capitalism has always been a mirage.
Government has always guided, corralled and shaped U.S. industry through a variety of mechanisms—be it by regulation, subsidy, or tax incentives, to name a few. But rarely has the government taken direct control of a company or industry, instead leaving it to market players to “choose” how they make their business decisions. Direct intervention has happened only in extremis—in times of war or financial crisis—and so called “industrial policy” of the sort practiced in other countries has been eschewed as “socialism.”
That is, until Donald Trump.
Even if he doesn’t recognize it as such, Trump has made industrial policy as much a part of his economic agenda as tariffs. He’s grabbed a “golden share” of US Steel, demanded an equity stake in Intel, and forced Nvidia to hand over 15 percent of the revenues from sales of certain chips to China. He’s also benefiting himself with these transactions. A remarkable new investigation by The New York Times found a web of connections between the administration’s sale of chips to the U.A.E. and a lucrative crypto deal for Trump’s family.
In the hands of Donald Trump, the tools of industrial policy threaten to be extensions of autocracy and instruments of corruption. But with the right safeguards, could a more enlightened and honest future president wield these mechanisms for the nation’s benefit? Potentially “yes,” argues Joel Dodge of the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator in a recent piece for The Washington Monthly, “Trump’s Industrial Policy: What’s Right and Wrong.”
I spoke to Joel about his essay and why he thinks industrial policy could be a beneficent feature of US economy policy going forward. Watch above.
Also worth a look from the Monthly…
The irony of conservative cancel culture. In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, right-wingers and government officials—including Trump—have boisterously sought to silence anyone who vilified the 31-year-old conservative activist. Ironically, Jonathan Zimmerman writes, this may not be what Kirk himself would have wanted. “Kirk insisted on his right to speak freely, no matter who was offended,” Jonathan argues. “We compound the tragedy of his death if we turn our backs on what he believed.” Meanwhile, Legal Affairs Editor Garrett Epps condemns Trump’s vows to punish critics as blatantly unconstitutional. “The First Amendment protects the sorts of vilification and contumely that Trump and Vance practice daily, which, it should be said, was a part of Kirk’s rhetoric,” Garrett writes. Read here.
The “I” word. Yes, let’s go there. Politics Editor Bill Scher argues that it’s time again to impeach Trump, this time for his disregard of the Constitution and the First Amendment in his lawless threats to silence political opponents. “Impeachment is the lone and proper constitutional remedy for an unconstitutional president and his unconstitutional apparatchiks,” Bill writes. Read here.
The hypocrisy of the Supreme Court. At the same time that the Supreme Court has demanded “race-blind” college admissions, it’s decided racial profiling in immigration enforcement is A-OK. In yet another exercise of its “emergency” powers, the Court recently issued an unsigned order allowing ICE to continue its “roving patrols” in Los Angeles. As a result, “any brown-skinned, Spanish-speaking Californian appearing to work in a low-wage occupation or even waiting for a bus has reasonable cause to fear being stopped by a federal agency running amok,” writes Peter Shane. Peter tears apart Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion justifying the Court’s action. Read here.
Elsewhere in the multiverse. Jack Rakove writes about the pivotal decisions at the Constitutional Convention that led to the Senate’s creation and what might have been if small states hadn’t won the right to an equal vote. Read here.
The TikTokification of college admissions. I wrote about the rise of “video essays” in college admissions as a solution to the scourge of AI. Turns out they could be one more way for wealthy students to get an advantage over the peers, especially when they’re submitting Oscar-worthy productions to admissions officers. Read here.
Plus…
Kyiv-based Tamar Jacoby embeds with a Ukrainian drone unit…
James Zirin explains a bizarre effort by Trump to modify the Great Seal of the United States—by turning the head of the eagle toward the arrows in its talons…
And elsewhere…
Lowering the bar. The “lawsuit” filed by Trump’s lawyers against the New York Times is a stunning exercise in sycophancy and legal malpractice, filled with screenshots, hyperbolic language and embarrassingly purple prose in praise of Our Dear Leader. Rather than laying out an argument in support of its case, the complaint fills pages with lists of Trump’s books and TV appearances. And all too ironically, the complaint accuses the Times of trying to “subject [Trump] to humiliation and ridicule” (as if this lawsuit itself wouldn’t do the trick.) The fact of this lawsuit is chilling, but its execution is unexpectedly comic. A judge has already tossed the suit, calling it “improper and impermissible.” Worth a read.
Portrait of a puppet master. Rolling Stone provides a deeply troubling look at the behind-the-scenes machinations of White House Advisor Stephen Miller, the white nationalist zealot who is the man behind the throne and the architect of the Trump Administration’s ruthless program of mass deportation. On a related note, the Bulwark’s Andrew Egger writes of Miller’s next goal in the wake of Kirk’s assassination: “Smash every institution of the left with the power of the state.”
Abortion and crime. Researchers at the National Bureau of Economic Research find that the lack of abortion access in Texas has put unwilling mothers into dire financial straits—and leading some to commit crime. “Reduced access to abortion … leads to significant economic hardship, reflected in lower labor force participation, rising debt, widening income inequality, and heightened housing insecurity. This financial strain translates into higher rates of financially motivated crime, such as theft and burglary,” the researchers write.
And it’s still not too late to take our reader survey. We want to hear from you!
Thanks for reading, and please remember that we depend on your support—not just as subscribers but as readers who share the word about our work and recommend us to your friends.
See you next week!
Anne
