360° PERSPECTIVES ON IMPORTANT POLICY TOPICS.

The facts on the ground

Facts have the potential to transform our understanding of an issue. Media coverage that prioritizes facts over sensationalized news often reveals information that strengthens public discourse.

Everything Policy’s brief on abortion access is an example of this type of coverage. After the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision returned abortion regulation to the states, the public debate has centered on how some states are narrowing the circumstances under which women can legally obtain the procedure.

However, the capacity of any state to narrow a woman’s choice has been complicated by the recent development of “Plan C”–– a generally safe and legal two-pill, at-home process to terminate pregnancy in the first trimester. At present, over two-thirds of abortions nationwide use Plan C, including a rapidly-increasing number of women who are prescribed Plan C using telemedicine, even in states that have banned abortion entirely.

Many providers of Plan C are located outside the U.S., so they are not subject to federal or state control. Thus, debates over state-level regulations miss an essential point: these restrictions may well become irrelevant in the near future.

Tradeoffs

Prioritizing facts can also inform us about the trade-offs inherent in some issues. We detailed one of these tradeoffs in Everything Policy’s brief on Medicaid, the federal-state program that provides healthcare to low-income and disabled Americans. The 2025 Budget Reconciliation Act mandated that able-bodied adults on Medicaid meet work requirements (including education or job training).

Out of the nearly 80 million Americans who receive Medicaid, approximately 3 million able-bodied individuals will have to meet the new requirements or risk having their Medicaid coverage dropped. Further burden could be placed on disabled or low-income Americans because the new regulations also require all recipients to certify every six months that they meet the requirements or are exempt. Medicaid recipients may lack internet access, transportation to Medicaid offices, or the wherewithal to complete the necessary forms biannually.  

Everything Policy’s goal is not to advocate for Medicaid work requirements––nor is it the goal to oppose them. Rather, our analysis highlights an unavoidable policy tradeoff between two competing goals: providing benefits to all who qualify, and motivating able-bodied individuals to enter the workforce. In an ideal world, the government could support both goals simultaneously; however, under current circumstances, the choice appears to be between two conflicting goals.  

Uncertainty

Everything Policy’s work highlights the pervasive uncertainty that exists in many policy areas. Public policies are often developed without a comprehensive understanding of the relevant opportunities and constraints, including requirements, costs, and how people will be directly impacted or respond to new initiatives.

Consider the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs). This transition raises important questions of cost, reliability, and safety. Our work focused on a basic requirement: the need for a nationwide network of charging stations, ensuring that charging is always available regardless of where people live or travel.

Everything Policy’s analysis revealed three things about the current state of EV charging in America. First, while there is a federal grant program to build charging stations, the number of stations planned under this initiative falls far short of what a full national network would likely require.

Second, calculations about a national charging network assume that most people will charge their EVs at home, using charging stations only on long road trips. These calculations overlook the fact that most urban residents lack access to a secure parking space or garage. Where will these residents charge their EVs? There is also little information on how demand for electricity will increase given higher use of EVs.

Third, our research indicates that most charging stations are currently being built in densely populated areas. However, for a national charging network to be effective, stations must be built in low-population, rural areas––places where a charging station will receive relatively low usage. Even if the federal government funds enough EV charging stations to satisfy aggressive goals, these facilities might not be built in the right places.

Everything Policy’s work did not address whether state laws mandating EV purchase are a good idea or a bad one––that is for our readers to decide. The central insight was that the mandates assume the sudden creation of a vast charging network will emerge in time to support pervasive use of EVs. Currently, there is no indication that such a network is being established.

Going Forward

From the beginning, Everything Policy has presented the facts around hot-button issues under public debate and let our readers use those facts to develop their own political beliefs and opinions. To produce fact-based content, Everything Policy has built a first-rate team of researchers, educators, interns, and other professionals, who work steadily to improve our analyses, expand our audience, and develop new ways to present our findings. We are grateful to you, our audience, for your attention and your feedback, as we strive to earn your trust and inform you about pressing policy issues by putting facts first.

How many abortions occur in America?

Data on the number of abortions performed annually is collected by the federal Centers for Disease Control and the private research and policy organization Guttmacher Institute from hospitals, doctors, and medical providers––including telemedicine. Everything Policy used data from the Guttmacher Institute. Although Guttmacher is generally considered to be a left-leaning organization, specifically advocating for abortion rights and reproductive health, the organization strives for nonpartisanship in its research, and its data is available for a more extended period.

The two figures below show the trend in the number of abortions over time, both raw numbers and the rate of abortions per 1000 birth-age (15-45) women.

The first chart shows that the annual number of abortions has declined from about 1.6 million in the 1980s to about a million in recent years. The second chart, which controls for population changes, shows that the abortion rate (number of abortions per 1000 birth-age women) has dropped in half, from 30 in the 1980s to less than 15 in recent years.

In general, the data show that abortions have become less common over time. During this same time, the birth rate has remained relatively stable.

In general, this data reflects that abortions have become less common over time. During this same time, the birth rate has remained relatively stable.

At what point of pregnancy are these abortions occurring?

The Centers for Disease Control collects data on abortion timing––the point during a pregnancy when the procedure is performed. The chart below shows 2020 data (the most recent available).

The chart shows that the vast majority of abortions are performed early in pregnancy—over 40 percent before six weeks and 80 percent before nine weeks. Very few—less than a percent—occur after 20 weeks of gestation. While there is no systematic data available, anecdotal evidence indicates that most abortions performed beyond 20 weeks are because of fetal abnormalities or maternal health issues, although some cases are due to individuals facing difficulties like personal decisions, costs of procedures, or clinic access.

How are available methods changing the way abortions are performed?

More and more abortions are being performed using medication called “Plan C.” For reference, the morning-after pill is typically referred to as “Plan B.” Plan C, also commonly referred to as the “abortion pill,” is two different medications taken several days apart, mifepristone and misoprostol, which ends early pregnancies 95-99% of the time. Generally, it is used up to 70 days, or ten weeks, after the first day of a menstrual period is missed.

The Guttmacher Institute estimates that approximately 63% of abortions tracked through the U.S. healthcare system in 2023 were medication abortions. Some states require that one or both pills be taken in a medical facility, but many states allow the pills to be dispensed by mail after a telemedicine appointment. A recent study by the Society of Family Planning found that as of mid-2024, the rate of telemedicine abortions has increased to nearly 20 percent of all abortions.

The Takeaway

Although the data does not address the moral and ethical aspects of legalized abortion, it does show that overall abortion rates have been declining for the past generation, with a small increase in the early 2020s, but an apparent leveling-off from 2023 to 2024.

Given that approximately 90% of all abortions are performed during the first trimester (weeks 1-14), state laws that restrict abortions during the second trimester (weeks 15-28) will likely have a relatively small impact on overall abortion rates.

The fact that women can obtain Plan C medication by mail without medical supervision has the potential to sidestep state-level limits on access to abortion. Many providers of these medications are outside the U.S., so they are not subject to federal or state regulation or prosecution. At present, only some abortions are self-managed, but this percentage will likely increase due to greater access to medications by mail. The data also suggests that domestic telemedicine abortion providers are sending Plan C medication to residents of states with limited abortion access.

What is SNAP?

SNAP is a program funded by the federal government and administered by state governments that provides financial assistance to low-income families for food purchases. The amount of SNAP benefits varies depending on state residency, family size, total assets, and net income (income after deductions for housing costs, child care, and other expenses). In a SNAP family that qualifies for full benefits, the family receives approximately $180 per person per month on a debit card that can be used to purchase a wide range of groceries.

The total cost of the SNAP program in the 2024 Fiscal Year (ending September 30, 2024) was about $112 billion.

SNAP Policy Changes

Below is a breakdown of the changes to SNAP, along with the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) projected impact on federal spending (in $millions) between 2025 and 2034.

How will these changes affect SNAP?

The CBO estimates that the SNAP provisions will reduce federal spending by approximately $300 billion over the next decade, or about 10-15% of the total cost of SNAP over the same period. The CBO also estimates that the changes will reduce SNAP enrollment by approximately five million people per month. Currently, about 40 million people are enrolled in SNAP.

The Takeaway

Examining a narrow slice of the 2025 Reconciliation Bill reveals the detailed policy changes included in the Act.  

The changes to the SNAP program are expected to reduce federal spending by over $300 billion over the next decade and decrease SNAP enrollment by approximately five million people per month.

How does the DOE Influence local schools?

Most of the DOE’s authority comes from its power to allocate funding to states and local education agencies (LEAs). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as most recently amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA), authorizes a range of federal programs that deliver support to schools.

The first title of ESSA, Title I, is the shorthand used to describe a group of federal grants distributed by the DOE. Some of these programs are established by the ESSA, while others are established by other legislation. In nearly every case, these funds flow to states and LEAs with some conditions attached. For example, Title I funds cannot be used to support fine arts or athletic programs. DOE was given the authority to develop and impose these restrictions in the ESEA and subsequent bills like ESSA.

The major funding streams that can go directly to schools are:

Title I and Title II of ESSA. Title I grants support students and schools in high-poverty areas. Title I grants serve around 25 million students by providing supplemental funding to schools in communities with concentrated poverty. Districts can use these funds flexibly on afterschool programs, schoolwide reforms, or targeted instruction, but must align efforts with state academic standards and use evidence-based interventions. Smaller grant programs like the Preschool Incentive Demonstration Program fund preschools in Title I districts. Grants for 21st Century Community Learning Centers fund before-school, after-school, and summer programs that are intended to increase academic achievement and family engagement in Title I schools. Another provision of ESSA, Title II, provides funds to recruit, train, and retain teachers and principals, reduce class sizes, and promote educator diversity.

Special Education Grants under IDEA. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1975 entitles eligible students to a “free and appropriate public education.” IDEA funds are used to hire personnel, offer early intervention services, and conduct student evaluations.

English Language Acquisition Grants. These grants help states and districts establish classes for English learners, especially in areas with high immigration rates. Funds support language instruction, professional development, and integration with broader academic programs.

• Targeted Support for Underserved Student Populations. A number of DOE programs provide funding to districts serving students whose needs are shaped by federal jurisdiction or life circumstances beyond their control. ‍
• Impact Aid reimburses school districts for lost local revenue when federal facilities such as military bases reduce property tax collections that support public schools. ‍
• Indian Education Grants supplement state and local efforts to support Native students, addressing both academic and cultural needs through targeted programming. ‍
• Neglected and Delinquent Youth Program funds education services for students in state-run institutions, community day programs, and correctional facilities, aiming to keep at-risk youth on a path to high school graduation.

Does DOE issue mandates?

As these descriptions indicate, federal education funding comes with the understanding that certain conditions will be met at the local level––requirements that recipient schools must satisfy to receive funds. For example, to receive English Language Acquisition Grants, states must receive DOE approval of their plans for new classes and professional education. These restrictions were established by DOE through the rulemaking process as directed by legislation enacted by Congress––for details on rulemaking, read our brief on Bureaucratic Authority.

While DOE cannot demand that schools follow certain rules about curriculum or hiring, it can make these rules part of the requirements for receiving federal education grants. In this way, DOE can influence local education decisions without making any formal mandates. Schools are free to ignore the DOE conditions, but only if they are willing to refuse the funding as well.

However, abolishing DOE would not necessarily eliminate these conditions on education grant funding – it would depend on what the new agency supervising the grants decided to do. In one scenario, DOE funds could be repackaged as block grants and given directly to states without any restrictions. But it is also possible that the new agency would impose the same or similar restrictions on grant funds or create new ones.

The Takeaway

DOE does not formally manage local schools, but it does influence decisions about hiring, curriculum, and other policies through conditions on grant funding.

DOE created these conditions through the rulemaking process, as authorized by Congress.  

If the DOE disappeared, the federal or state agencies that inherited the programs and funding could establish their own requirements for grant recipients.

‍

What is inflation?

Inflation occurs when the price of goods and services increases over time. As inflation rises, the same amount of money buys fewer goods and services. For example, suppose gasoline costs $3.00 per gallon in January. At this price, it costs $36.00 to fill a 12-gallon gas tank. If inflation causes gas prices to increase by 10% by December, gasoline now costs $3.30 a gallon, and the same $36.00 will buy only 11 gallons. In effect, $1.00 in December is worth less than $1.00 last January.

The national inflation rate is determined by checking the prices of a fixed set of goods and services over time. The figure below shows the annual inflation rate from 1940 through 2024. Over this time, the typical inflation rate has been about 2%, although there have been periods of much higher inflation. After the COVID-19 pandemic, inflation increased to an annual rate of 4.7% in 2021 and 8% in 2022, but decreased to 2.9% in 2024. The highest inflation rate since World War II occurred in the 1970s, when increased oil prices led to overall inflation rates exceeding 14%.

What causes inflation?

Inflation occurs because of two economic factors: supply and demand.

When the supply of a good or service decreases because of a shortage, the price of that good or service increases as the same number of people wanting to buy it are competing for less supply. An example of this can be seen in the egg price inflation of 2024, which was largely caused by bird flu killing a significant number of egg-laying hens.

Similarly, when demand for a good or service increases, more people compete to buy the same amount of the good or service, leading to a price increase. An example of this is in the housing market: When new people move to an area, but the pace of new home construction doesn’t keep up, it will result in more people competing for the same amount of housing inventory, and prices go up.

Why does inflation matter?

Purchasing power is the amount of goods and services that can be bought with a fixed amount of money. As inflation increases, purchasing power decreases. Inflation also affects the interest rates people pay for mortgages, car loans, and other consumer credit. High inflation also creates uncertainty, making it harder for businesses to plan expansions, and causes individual consumers to be more cautious about large purchases such as a home or a car. Both of these effects of high inflation can lower economic growth.

Low rates of inflation are not necessarily a bad thing. Most economists consider inflation rates of 2-3% to be healthy. However, negative inflation rates are thought to discourage business investment and consumer spending, leading to lower rates of economic growth.

Can inflation be controlled?

Inflation is not easily controlled, but governments can take some steps to stabilize it.

In the federal government, the primary responsibility for controlling inflation falls to the Federal Reserve Bank (abbreviated FRB, usually referred to as The Fed), which sets the interest rate at which banks borrow money from each other or the Fed. Banks then adjust their interest rates for loaning money to individuals and businesses based on this rate. When interest rates go up, it is more expensive to borrow money, so the demand for goods and services goes down (inflation decreases). When interest rates go down, it is cheaper to borrow money, so the demand for goods and services goes up (inflation increases).

The problem the Fed faces is that raising interest rates to lower inflation can also lower economic growth and even cause a recession. By law, Federal policy must balance the goals of keeping inflation low and promoting economic growth. It is hard to achieve both goals simultaneously. For example, the Fed raised interest rates in 2022 and 2023 to control inflation, accepting the risk that rate increases would slow economic growth.

Changes in federal spending enacted by Congress also affect the inflation rate. By increasing spending, Congress can cause demand-induced inflation. In the same way, reducing (or limiting increases) in spending can reduce inflation. High levels of government borrowing (to fund a budget deficit) can also cause inflation.

Locally, governments can impact inflation by enacting policies that affect the supply of certain goods, such as housing. Restrictive zoning requirements, for example, can result in a lower housing inventory than locally demanded, leading to an increase in housing prices. Similarly, recent green energy policies passed by states led to an increase in demand for the supplies needed to build wind power turbines, which increased the price of those supplies and made projects significantly more expensive.

The Takeaway

Inflation peaked in the early 2020s, but as of July 2025 has mostly returned to prior levels.

Inflation is caused by increases in demand or decreases in supply. During a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic, inflation can become higher as markets adjust to changing economic conditions.

Governments often play a role in both creating inflation and decreasing inflation, but so do free market forces like supply and demand.

What is an information silo?

Information silos have been common since the earliest days of the United States. Many newspapers still retain partisan identification in their names, such as the Democrat & Chronicle (Rochester, NY) or The Republican (Springfield, MA), relics of a bygone era when newspapers explicitly aligned themselves with political parties.

In the 20th Century, most news sources attempted to move away from overt partisan or ideological slants, even if some had an identifiable lean in their coverage. Today, for example, audience data flags Fox News and the Washington Examiner as conservative outlets, and MSNBC and National Public Radio as liberal outlets, even though none of those sources explicitly identify themselves with a partisan or ideological label.

Why are Information silos a problem?

Someone in an information silo would see a narrow range of perspectives on how to address policy problems and a narrow definition of which issues are problems in the first place. Even if conservative and liberal media cover the same story, the coverage may differ in terms of what is emphasized and the solutions proposed. Thus, information silos make it more difficult for individuals to understand the perspectives of political opponents, identify possible solutions and compromises, or be exposed to new information that would allow them to refine their beliefs.

Furthermore, when a partisan is exposed to only one viewpoint or limited information, it is more likely that opinions become seen as facts. Similarly, an issue that is overemphasized by one ideological side is likely to become the most important issue to that partisan, regardless of whether that issue is actually a significant aspect of the policy being discussed.

How many people are in information silos?

The Pew Research Service published a study on media consumption by party identification in 2020. The survey asked respondents about their partisanship, which media sources they trusted, and which sources they used.

This data is limited because it relies on a respondent’s report of which media sources they use. We don’t know how people read or watch from each source, or whether they are being fully transparent in their responses. Even so, this data provides some insight into the prevalence of media silos.

Based on this data, Everything Policy’s analysts divided respondents into four categories:

• Only Partisan Sources: a respondent who only consumes partisan media (sources trusted by a majority of their co-partisans), such as a Democrat who only watches MSNBC. These individuals fit the definition of an information silo.
• Combination of Sources: a respondent who consumes partisan and nonpartisan sources (a Republican who watches FOX News but also reads The Wall Street Journal).
• No Partisan Sources: a respondent who does not consume any partisan sources
• None: a respondent who does not consume any of the 60 sources in the Pew Survey.

The results are shown in the figure below.

Surprisingly, only about 20 percent of Republicans and Democrats and less than 15 percent of Independents report being in an information silo. Moreover, regardless of partisan affiliation, a majority of Americans report consuming a combination of media sources, including both partisan and nonpartisan ones.

A New Question

One of the most well-known ideas in political science is the Median Voter Theorem (MVT). The MVT shows that politicians should seek the middle ground (or median voter) to get elected. According to the MVT, then, moderates should be driving political debate and policy discourse.

However, existing evidence shows that extreme partisans (those who are siloed) are instead leading American political debate and policy discourse on both the left and the right. For example, Congress today is highly polarized, which hinders the ability to make meaningful policy decisions and potentially compromise on important issues. Analysis by political scientists shows that politicians who behave in this way are responding to relatively extreme constituents over more moderate groups. In this way, the existence of information silos at the voter level shapes political discourse and policy outcomes in Washington.

The Takeaway

Living in an information silo can lead to self-reinforcing beliefs about how policy problems should be approached and about what constitutes a problem in the first place.

Survey data indicate that while the extreme partisans in both parties appear to be siloed, about half of Americans report consulting a wide range of media sources.

Nonetheless, the extreme partisans appear to be dominating political debates and driving policy discussions. In a future brief, Everything Policy analysts will explore this topic further, including why the Median Voter Theorem does not appear to hold in today’s political climate.

‍

If DOE and All Its Work Disappeared

Because the DOE is a congressionally created department acting out statutorily mandated policies, it cannot be eliminated by executive order. But if DOE were to be entirely dissolved, the financial effects could be significant. To get a top-level view of DOE operations related to use of funds, the chart below highlights the five largest line items in the Department’s 2024 budget.

If the DOE was eliminated and other federally available funding was not established, federal student loans and grants would likely no longer be accessible. About 8.7 million college students receive funds from programs like Pell Grants, TEACH Grants, Direct Loans, and Federal Work-Study. Title I grants supporting 26 million students in low-income K-12 schools would need funds from another source, as would special education funding under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Vocational rehabilitation grants for individuals with disabilities could be at risk. Smaller programs like GEAR UP (college preparation for low-income students), the National Technical Institute for the Deaf, and services for neglected youth would end without replacement funding.

But Without Congress’ Support, What Can Really Happen to Funding?

Most major DOE programs — including Pell Grants, student loans, Title I, and IDEA — are authorized by federal law, not simply created by DOE. Eliminating the agency would not automatically eliminate these programs. Instead, their administration would likely transfer to other departments, like Treasury or Health and Human Services. If the funding currently allocated by the DOE to individual states were to be repurposed into open-ended grants to states and local school districts, then much of the financial impact of shutting down the DOE would be muted. However, there are no formal proposals to implement these changes.  

The executive order directed DOE to take steps to dismantle itself “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law.” But because DOE was created by an act of Congress, full elimination would require new legislation. Without Congressional cooperation, only administrative actions are possible. Such actions could still have major consequences. The Administration could weaken DOE’s functionality by cutting staff, slowing the enforcement of existing regulations, and underfunding student aid management.

It’s important to note that most education regulations are formulated at the state level. DOE enforces only a narrow set of federal rules, primarily tied to civil rights and funding conditions. Curriculum standards, teacher certification, and school operations remain under state and local control. A future brief will explore the non-financial implications and potential impact on test scores and related data highlighted in our brief regarding the quality of education in the U.S..

The Takeaway

If the Department of Education and its work disappeared overnight, the impacts would be significant for many college students and elementary and secondary students in Title I schools. However, these changes require the enactment of new legislation.

Without new acts of Congress, “eliminating” DOE will mostly mean bureaucratic reshuffling, potentially slowing, but not ending, major programs.

The broader implication is that federal agencies and established policies are often difficult to eliminate, requiring legislative action in addition to executive orders.  

It is difficult to know whether the full impact surrounding accessibility and quality of education in the U.S. would improve or worsen if the DOE was eliminated without further understanding if similar responsibilities, including funding, were administered at the state and local levels.

What are NAEP assessments?

Administered by the National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP is the largest nationally representative and ongoing assessment of primary and secondary schools. Since 1969, NAEP has measured student performance at grades 4, 8, and 12. The subjects covered have changed over time but include math, reading, science, civics, U.S. history, technology and engineering literacy, geography, the arts, economics, and writing.

Unlike state assessments, which vary by content and standard, NAEP assessments are based on nationally developed frameworks. This consistency allows for comparisons between states and over time. Students participate at regular intervals, but results are only reported in the aggregate, not for individual students or schools.

NAEP results are reported in two ways:

• Average Scale Scores: Numerical scores that reflect the overall performance of a group, with higher scores indicating greater mastery of the tested subject. These scales are specific to each subject.

• Achievement Levels: Students are categorized as performing at Basic (partial mastery), Proficient (solid academic performance), or Advanced (superior performance).

How Have Students' Scores Changed Over Time?

NAEP data from 1990 to 2024 (what is available online) provides a long-term view of national academic performance. While not every subject is tested each year or at all grade levels, math and reading are regularly assessed at grades 4 and 8.

Looking at average scores over the past 25 years, students made meaningful gains in math and reading from the 1990s through the early 2010s. Since about 2015, however, progress has stalled or reversed. This trend is visible in the figure below, where all four scores show downward movement from their respective peaks.

Post-COVID data continues to highlight this downward trend. From 2018 to 2022, math scores for both 4th and 8th graders dropped more than at any point in NAEP history. Only 26% of 8th graders and 35% of 4th graders reached proficiency in math in 2022. Reading outcomes were similarly weak: 33% of 4th graders and 31% of 8th graders scored at or above proficient. In civics, Grade 8 scores have shown little change in two decades and remain well below the Proficient benchmark.

How do U.S. test results compare to other countries?

One international comparison to these data are similar tests administered by the nations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a group of 35 other industrialized countries. Here, U.S. students are consistently above the average in reading and science, but trail behind in mathematics. In a second comparison, the 2022 Programme for International Student Assessment of 15-year-olds in 80 countries, U.S. scores were again near the average, well below countries such as Singapore, China, and South Korea.

These international comparisons are not airtight. The U.S. tests as many students as possible, while other countries may only test a subset of highly qualified students. In addition, tests may not be comparable across countries. Even so, the mid-range results for U.S. students raise questions about the need for educational reform.

The Takeaway

NAEP scores show that after decades of progress, American students are now experiencing a broad academic backslide, particularly in math and reading. International comparisons show that the U.S. is near the average across many nations.

It is important to note that most primary and secondary education funding and policy decisions (including curriculum) are made at the state and local level, with the federal Department of Education exercising minimal oversight.

Even so, these data indicate that recent federal initiatives are not improving overall educational achievement in the U.S. at the national or international level.

‍

Where the Bill Saves Money

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the largest projected savings come from changes in the Medicaid program, student loans, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

The most substantial deficit reduction measure comes from a Medicaid policy change. All states would be required to impose work and community engagement requirements for adults without dependents who don’t have certain disabilities. Those who fail to meet the 80-hour monthly minimum would lose coverage. It is also likely that some eligible recipients will be dropped because they fail to meet new certification requirements. Depending on how states implement the new regulations, CBO estimates savings of up to $710 billion over ten years.

For student loans, the budget will limit income-driven repayment options and make other changes to payment levels. CBO projects that these changes will increase federal tax revenues by $294.6 billion over the next ten years.

Finally, beginning in 2028, states must cover 5% of SNAP benefit costs. Additionally, states with high payment error rates must pay a larger share of SNAP costs. The CBO estimates these changes will reduce the federal share of the program’s cost by $90 billion over ten years.

Where the Bill Spends

The reconciliation bill's major spending increases come from changes in tax policy. The reconciliation bill's largest tax code change is the extension of the 2017-era income tax cuts, which are currently scheduled to expire at the end of 2025. The extension is projected to reduce federal tax revenues by over $3.5 trillion over the next ten years.

It is important to understand that this provision extends an existing tax reduction rather than implementing a new tax cut. If congressional Republicans allowed the cuts to expire, they would be raising taxes on many Americans, which could stall economic growth. This outcome is due to the fact that the credits were originally enacted in 2017 as temporary changes, which reduced their impact on the national debt as calculated in official statistics such as CBO estimates. At the time, many observers expected the credits to be made permanent in 2025, which is what the House bill does.

Another significant change is the expansion of the Child Tax Credit (CTC). The bill raises the CTC to $2,500 per child from 2025 to 2028 and then reverts to a $2,000 credit (which will then be adjusted for inflation). The expanded credit is expected to reduce federal tax revenue by approximately $187.7 billion over ten years.

Next, the bill includes a new 100% depreciation allowance for qualified production property. The aim is to boost U.S. manufacturing by allowing businesses to immediately deduct the full cost of constructing or purchasing industrial facilities. Depending on how many businesses use the credit, and considering the new taxes these facilities generate, it could reduce federal tax revenue by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next ten years.

The bill also introduces a temporary tax break for overtime pay. From 2025 to 2028, workers can deduct overtime compensation from their taxable income. The CBO projects that this change will reduce federal tax revenue by $124 billion over ten years.

The Takeaway

The House-passed 2025 reconciliation bill proposes large changes to the federal budget and safety net programs.

It is difficult to be precise about how the reconciliation bill will affect future deficits and the national debt. Uncertainties include how economic growth, inflation, and interest rates will change over the next decade, trends in Medicaid and SNAP enrollment, and the number of businesses using the new tax credits.

CBO’s best estimate is that the current bill, if enacted, will add about $2.3 trillion to the national debt over ten years.

What Problem Is the SAVE Act Trying to Solve?

The SAVE Act amends the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to “require proof of United States citizenship to register an individual to vote in elections for Federal office.” Currently, no state legislation allows non-citizens to vote in federal elections, and voters must attest to being U.S. citizens when registering; non-citizens who attempt to register face fines, prison, and deportation.

The issue with current registration requirements is that in most states, people must prove their identity, age, and residency, but can attest (under penalty of perjury) to their citizenship. Moreover, while people need to prove either citizenship or legal status (green card or valid visa) to get a Real ID driver’s license, at present, licenses in 45 states do not indicate whether someone is a citizen.

Instances of non-citizen voting in American elections are extremely rare. In 2016, when about 137 million votes were cast, about 30 confirmed cases occurred in a study of 42 jurisdictions, including 8 of the 10 most inhabited by non-citizens. There is no evidence that noncitizen voting has ever altered an election outcome.

Even so, the concern is that noncitizen voting might become more common in the future or be decisive in some regional contests. The SAVE Act aims to eliminate the possibility of noncitizens voting in current and future elections. In doing so, the SAVE Act makes voting comparable to other activities in everyday life (such as opening a bank account), where it is mandatory to establish identity using a small set of acceptable documents.

What Would the SAVE Act Do?

The SAVE Act would add more voter registration requirements. Under the bill:

• Real IDs (such as a driver's license) would no longer suffice for voter registration.
• Voters must provide citizen-verifying certified documents in person, such as a U.S. passport or birth certificate.
• Military and tribal IDs would not be sufficient unless accompanied by additional documents that confirm citizenship.
• Voter registration would have to be done in person, effectively ending online, mail-in, and voter registration drives.

The Act also allows (but does not mandate) states to establish procedures whereby individuals could establish citizenship by submitting other documents to local election officials. These officials could accept or reject the evidence, potentially allowing people to vote without a passport or birth certificate.

What Could the Impact Be?

The SAVE Act would create more barriers against noncitizen voting, well above current law.

However, only about half of Americans have a passport, and 70 million U.S. women have changed their names after marriage, creating potential mismatches between birth certificates and current IDs. Implementing the SAVE Act would require these individuals to obtain a passport or an updated birth certificate to vote. The Act would also make it somewhat harder for people to register to vote, as people who register by mail or at the DMV would instead have to go to their local Board of Elections.

Taken together, these issues suggest that the Act could reduce voter turnout, as some citizens may abstain rather than secure the necessary identification. In 2013, Kansas enacted a proof-of-citizenship requirement similar to the SAVE Act. It is reported to have blocked 12% of voter registration applications—more than 30,000 individuals. It is believed that over 99.9% of these registrants were U.S. citizens. Many were unaware their registration was incomplete until they arrived at the polls on Election Day.

The Take-Away

The SAVE Act highlights a long-running debate: balancing election security with accessibility.

In a world where individuals must establish their identification for many routine transactions, the relatively weak requirements for voter registration are an exception to the rule.

These requirements are consistent with the goal of maximizing voter turnout. However, they also weaken election security, potentially if not in practice.

The SAVE Act would make it all but impossible for noncitizens to vote. In doing so, it would also make it harder for a larger number of American citizens to vote. Deciding whether the Act is beneficial requires consideration of both of these effects.

What is Medicaid?

Medicaid is a joint federal-state health insurance program for children, low-income individuals and families, pregnant women, the blind, and other disabled persons. Though largely federally funded, it is run by individual states, so specific eligibility requirements vary. Most Medicaid costs are covered by the federal government.

What are the proposed work requirements?

The proposed House budget bill requires Medicaid recipients to meet certain community engagement requirements, which have been widely reported as “work requirements.” However, the bill defines five ways in which an individual can meet these requirements:

• work 80 hours per month
• perform 80 hours per month of community service
• attend a work-training program for 80 hours per month
• be enrolled as at least a half-time student
• any combination of 1-4 that totals 80 hours in a month

The Act also includes several exemptions to these requirements, some of which all states must adhere to (mandatory) and some of which states may allow (optional). Mandatory exemptions include: persons under the age of 19, pregnant women, blind persons, mentally or physically disabled persons, caretakers of disabled persons, persons with a substance-use disorder or mental disorder, and those released from incarceration in the past 3 months, among others.

Optional exemptions include hospitalized individuals, those living in a county under a disaster declaration, those living in a county with greater than 8% unemployment (or 1.5 times the national unemployment rate), or any other hardship identified by the Secretary of Health.  

What is the logic for work requirements?

The central rationale for adding work requirements to Medicaid is the belief that people who can work to support themselves should be required to do so, rather than receiving federal benefits for free. Providing free health care to otherwise able-bodied individuals reduces their incentive to find employment that either provides health care as a benefit or pays them enough to afford insurance on the open market. Finally, insofar as work requirements encourage some recipients to return to the workforce, the policy could reduce Medicaid enrollments and the program’s cost.

Creating these incentives has a potential secondary cost: all Medicaid recipients would have to complete paperwork every six months to certify that they meet work requirements or qualify for an exemption. The concern is that some otherwise-qualified recipients will lose benefits because of incomplete paperwork or processing errors.

How many Medicaid recipients would fall under the work requirements?

While there are over 75 million Medicaid recipients, about 28 million are able-bodied adults between 18 and 64 years old. (The rest are children, seniors, or disabled.) Of those 28 million recipients, data from the Department of Health and Human Services shows that almost two-thirds already satisfy the work requirements, and an additional 30 percent qualify for one of the mandatory exemptions. Thus, if the proposed requirements were implemented, it is projected that two million individuals would have to start working or otherwise meet the requirements to remain qualified for Medicaid.

In terms of budgetary impacts, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office  estimates that federal spending could be reduced by up to $710 billion over ten years. In addition, Medicaid enrollments would be reduced by up to five million people, of which about half would be uninsured.

‍

The Takeaway

Based on the current wording of the House budget proposal, Medicaid work requirements will impact about two million people out of over seventy-five million recipients.

Implementing the proposed work requirements could potentially save the federal government about $100 billion over ten years.  

Judgments about the desirability of implementing work requirements for Medicaid reflect an individual’s evaluation of two competing goals: creating work incentives and reducing federal spending versus providing benefits to a broader group of individuals who otherwise would qualify for Medicaid.  

What Are Executive Orders?

Presidents use executive orders to reorganize the federal bureaucracy, change how laws or regulations are interpreted and to make statements of national priorities among other reasons. The table below shows the average number of executive orders issued by Presidents since the 1970s.

How does the Administrative Procedure Act constrain Executive Orders?

Most executive orders deal with relatively small matters – for example, Presidents often issue an order allowing federal workers to go home early on the last working day before Christmas. However, some executive orders have had significant policy consequences. President Kennedy used an executive order to establish the Peace Corps, and President Obama created the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program that allowed undocumented adults brought to America as children to have legal status, including work authorization. Many of President Trump’s recent executive orders were similarly more substantive, including withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accords, designating drug cartels as terrorist organizations, and abolishing the Department of Education.  

The general rule on executive orders is that they remain in effect until repealed by Congress or removed by a future President. However, Presidents cannot use executive orders to undo enacted laws. Full Implementation of President Trump’s Department of Education order will require Congress to repeal the law establishing the Department and repeal other laws that created programs within the Department, such as federal student loans.

In addition, the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) sets out requirements that must be followed for an executive order that changes an interpretation (a “rule”) of a federal statute. Rules are defined in the APA as "the whole or a part of an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy.”

When a President seeks to change a rule, the government is required to follow the steps laid out in the APA: publish a notice of intent in the Federal Register, solicit public comments, respond to those comments, and then finalize and publish the new rule. A typical rulemaking process takes six months to several years, depending on the complexity of the proposal. At each step, groups that oppose the change can bring legal action to delay the process.

In response to President Trump’s recent executive orders, as of late April 2025, at least 202 lawsuits have been filed in federal courts challenging the legality of one or more orders. At least 118 (59.8%) lawsuits explicitly mention that the orders failed to follow the APA. The outcome of these cases remains uncertain. However, in several cases, judges have issued injunctions to halt the implementation of the orders while claims regarding the APA are assessed. These include President Trump’s orders on transgender passport identification, termination of federal workers, and cancellation of federal science grants.  

The Take Away

Presidents have the power to change government policies through executive orders. During his first months in office, President Trump implemented many significant policy changes through executive orders.

One important limitation of executive orders is that they must comply with the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act. This requirement can lead to significant implementation delays.

Many court cases challenging President Trump’s executive orders cite noncompliance with the APA. If these cases survive judicial consideration, they will force the President to follow the APA procedures to implement his policy goals.

‍

What are Impoundments?

While the Constitution grants Congress the ‘power of the purse’ to determine spending levels by enacting an annual budget, current law gives the President a limited power to impound funds.

Until Richard Nixon impounded roughly $18 billion from various programs, there were few examples of impoundments. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1975’s Train v. City of New York that Nixon had to release the funds. However, its decision did not consider the constitutionality of impoundment.

While the Court was hearing the case, Congress enacted the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA). The ICA gives the President limited authority to impound funds. The ICA also divides impoundments into two types of impoundments: deferrals and rescissions. Deferrals are temporary holds on funding – they may not extend beyond the end of the current fiscal year. A presidential deferral stays in effect unless the House and Senate pass a disapproval resolution. Rescission is a permanent funding cut, but the House and Senate must approve the action within 45 days. Otherwise, the rescission is reversed. The ICA requires the President to notify Congress with a special message containing an impoundment’s estimated fiscal, economic, and budgetary impacts.

President George H.W. Bush was the last president to successfully impound funds. He cut $7.9 billion in spending through 128 rescissions, which were successfully passed with bipartisan support. President Trump proposed several rescissions in his first term, but Congress did not approve his recommendations.

What about President Trump’s recent impoundments?

In his first three months in office, President Trump has cut spending across various federal agencies, from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health to the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Department of the Treasury. The total number of cuts is tens of billions of dollars. However, as of the publication of this brief, it is believed the President has not sent special messages to Congress detailing his rationale for impounding funds. Neither the House nor the Senate has voted to approve the impoundments.  

Ultimately, if the ICA’s procedures are not followed, members of Congress could bring a court case, culminating in a Supreme Court review of the ICA’s constitutionality, and the spending cuts could be reversed.

A ruling that strikes the ICA down will change the balance of power between Congress and the President. It will allow Presidents to treat the annual budget as a funding ceiling and reduce spending on activities that they disapprove of.

The Take-Away

Current law gives the President a limited power to impound funds. These rules have been in effect for over 50 years.

President Trump’s impoundments deviate from current law because his administration has not sent special messages to Congress detailing the reasons for his impoundment. The 45-day clock for congressional approval is also not being implemented.

The Supreme Court will ultimately decide on the constitutionality of the Impoundment Control Act and President Trump’s actions.

What is a Social Security number?

A Social Security number (SSN) is a 9-digit number unique to each individual who is issued one. In the United States, an SSN is necessary to start a job, open a bank account, or claim government benefits. All U.S. citizens are eligible to receive an SSN.

Some noncitizens can legally obtain an SSN. This group includes those employed in the U.S. or those enrolled in educational institutions, such as international students. Participants in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program are also eligible. Noncitizen eligibility is strictly limited to individuals who are lawfully present in the United States and authorized to work.

‍Why did the number of noncitizens with Social Security numbers increase in recent years?

Due to three policies, the number of noncitizens with SSNs increased significantly since 2021. The first was humanitarian parole, which allows individuals to enter the U.S. for urgent humanitarian reasons. Once in the U.S., these individuals are eligible to apply for work permits, making them eligible for SSNs.

The second policy is Temporary Protected Status (TPS), which is granted to individuals from countries where conditions such as ongoing armed conflict, environmental disasters, or other extraordinary and temporary conditions are deemed to make it unsafe for them to return home. TPS recipients are not deportable and are eligible for work permits, thereby granting them access to SSNs.

The third policy is for asylum seekers, who are people seeking legal protection in the U.S. because they face persecution in their home country. Once granted asylum, they are allowed to work legally in the U.S. This ability to work legally comes with eligibility for a work permit, which in turn makes them eligible for an SSN.

One group that cannot obtain SSNs are individuals who entered the U.S. illegally. The only exception is if these individuals gain legal status, which is possible but rare.

Can noncitizens with a SSN receive Social Security benefits?  

They can. A person qualifies for Social Security benefits if they work in the U.S. for roughly ten years. This system ensures that benefits are extended to only those who have contributed consistently to the economy. The size of an individual’s benefit depends on their average salary during their three highest-income years. These rules apply to both citizens and noncitizens. It is an open question whether noncitizens will work long enough in the U.S. to gain eligibility for benefits.

Social Security Disability Insurance is available for people who have worked in the U.S. for 5-10 years and have a medical condition that meets the Social Security Administration's definition of disability.

The Takeaway

In the U.S., noncitizens can lawfully obtain SSNs, primarily for employment purposes, allowing the government to manage work and tax reporting.

Having an SSN does not equate to U.S. citizenship, and someone can receive Social Security benefits only if they have worked in the U.S. for over a decade.

In recent years, the rise in immigration has led to more SSNs being issued to noncitizens.

AI and Electricity Usage

As shown in the figure below, energy usage in the U.S. has begun to trend upwards after being largely flat for several years.

While the use of AI has been increasing in recent years, there have also been more electric vehicles on the road and a boom in cryptocurrency mining, both of which could be driving the spike in energy use. To parse out AI’s independent role in energy consumption, experts typically point to data center energy consumption as a direct proxy for AI, as these expansive commercial complexes are where AI technology is being implemented on a large scale.

AI uses energy in two ways: processing needs and cooling. On the front end, AI uses large amounts of processing power. That processing also creates large amounts of heat, which for most data centers today, requires electricity for cooling.

Researchers from the Berkeley Lab’s Energy Analysis and Environmental Impacts Division note that energy use at U.S. data centers was steady at about 60 TwH from 2014-2016 but grew to over 76 TwH by 2018, representing about 1.9% of total U.S. electricity consumption. By 2023, that figure increased to 176 TWh, about 4% of total U.S. electricity consumption. By 2028, they estimate that data centers will consume 7-12% of U.S. electricity.

Internationally, researchers at MIT estimate that data centers’ share of global energy consumption could grow from 1-2% currently to as high as 21% by 2030. Similarly, the International Energy Agency estimated back in 2022 that data centers’ global electricity use will double by 2026.

The Take Away

Electricity use by data centers has been growing in recent years, and experts expect that growth to skyrocket over the next decade.

The increased use of AI technologies by individuals, corporations, and governments appears to contribute to increased power consumption by data centers.

‍

What Is The National Debt?  What Is The Debt Limit?

The U.S. national debt mainly consists of bonds that the government issues to fund budget deficits. Investors, businesses, and foreign governments buy these bonds. Congress sets a debt “ceiling”—the maximum allowable level for the national debt. In 2023, Congress passed the Fiscal Responsibility Act, suspending the debt limit until January 1, 2025, at which point it reset at $36.1 trillion, matching the then current outstanding debt. In March 2024, House Republicans passed a budget proposal raising the ceiling by another $4 trillion.

Contrary to common misconceptions, raising the debt limit doesn’t authorize new spending; it simply lets the government pay for expenses already approved. For example, if the 2025 budget allocates $4.3 trillion in spending but collects only $3.1 trillion in taxes, the $1.2 trillion shortfall (the deficit) must be financed through debt to honor existing commitments.

How Large Is The National Debt?  

This figure shows the growth of U.S. national debt over time (left axis), compared with U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as a benchmark (right axis). For decades, federal revenues have stayed consistently near 17% of GDP, while federal spending has risen notably in the past 20 years, reaching about 26% of GDP.

Notice that both the national debt and GDP began rising steadily around the 1970s and have continued upward since. Why does our national debt keep increasing? Debt rises when the federal government spends more in a year than it collects from taxes, tariffs, and fees—this annual shortfall is called a deficit. Additionally, debt grows simply through interest payments, which accumulate year after year.

Several factors explain these increases. During WWII (1939-1945), the Korean War (1950-1953), and the New Deal era, government spending was high, but the top marginal tax rate was also extremely high—94% in 1944 on incomes over $200,000 (about $2.5 million today). From the 1960s to the 1980s, however, top marginal tax rates fell, even as spending continued to rise, causing frequent deficits. Since 1960, the U.S. had budget surpluses in only six years—not enough to significantly reduce the debt. As a result, Congress has raised the debt ceiling many times, as shown below.

What Are The Consequences of a Large National Debt?  

The consequences of national debt are challenging for legislators to address because their impact is mostly felt by future generations. With the U.S. debt currently around $36 trillion—growing by nearly $100,000 per second—future generations will bear much of this burden.

The current (April 2025) House budget proposal includes $1.8 trillion in spending cuts and $4.5 trillion in tax reductions, which together would increase the deficit by about $1.6 trillion, requiring an additional debt limit increase of roughly $4 trillion.

The Takeaway

Debates over the national debt and debt limit regularly resurface in American politics.

Raising the debt ceiling doesn't authorize new spending, it highlights ongoing gaps between federal revenue and expenses.

At different times, both parties have supported increasing the limit to cover obligations already made.

As policymakers consider spending cuts, tax adjustments, and debt limit changes, their choices have implications beyond immediate budgets, influencing economic opportunities and challenges for future generations.

What is a balanced budget?

A balanced federal budget exists when the government collects as much in taxes and other revenues as it spends on government programs. The last time the U.S. had a balanced budget was in 2001.

The figure below shows that in fiscal year 2024 (October 1, 2023 – September 30, 2024), the U.S. government spent $6.93 trillion but collected $4.89 trillion in revenue, leading to a budget deficit of 2.04 trillion dollars.

Economists usually measure the deficit in terms of the size of the U.S. economy, which is measured by the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Using this measure, the 2024 federal deficit was over 6.9% of GDP. The figure below shows annual budget deficits and surpluses measured as a percentage of GDP.  

Why Is there a deficit?

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the government has had historically high budget deficits. First, business closures and unemployment from the COVID-19 pandemic led to a significant reduction in tax revenue. At the same time, the federal government spent over six trillion dollars to combat the pandemic, develop and distribute vaccines, and assist businesses and individuals. In 2021 and 2022, Congress passed additional large spending packages on capital infrastructure, credits for renewable energy systems, and rebuilding the domestic chip (integrated circuit) production industry.

In addition to spending increases, the current budget deficits are a function of tax cuts and program changes enacted by Congress and the President. The last balanced budget in 2001 disappeared after tax cuts in 2001 & 2003, while tax cuts in 2017 reduced government revenue by about $1.3 trillion between 2018 and 2024.

Do budget deficits matter?

Most economists believe that small or temporary federal deficits have little or no impact on economic conditions such as growth, unemployment, and inflation. However, problems may arise if the national debt (accumulated deficits) becomes too large.

Because budget deficits are funded by selling government bonds, a rising debt draws away some funds that might otherwise be used for productive capital investments. Increased debt also requires a portion of government revenue to be used for interest payments, reducing the amount of funds available for other needs, particularly unexpected problems. Currently, the U.S. pays more in debt payments than it does for veterans’ benefits, education, disaster relief, agriculture, science and space programs, foreign aid, natural resources, and environmental protection combined.  

Increased government borrowing can also lead to higher interest rates, making it harder for firms to borrow money for new initiatives and increasing the cost of mortgages and car loans. Higher interest rates can also reduce exports and economic growth.  

What changes are needed to balance the federal budget?

To have a balanced budget, the amount of money the federal government collects in taxes and other revenue must equal the amount of money it spends on programs and services. This change can happen by increasing taxes, reducing spending, or a combination of the two.

The most important question regarding spending cuts is whether some programs should be exempt from deficit-reduction efforts. Should Social Security and Medicare be excluded? What about defense spending? A 2020 study by the Congressional Budget Office details the impact of different strategies.

The figure shows that if no programs are exempt, spending must be reduced by about 25% across the board to balance the budget in ten years. If defense and veterans programs as well as Social Security and Medicare, are excluded, about 30% in cuts across the board are required. If defense and veterans programs, as well as Social Security and Medicare, are excluded, remaining programs would need to be cut by about 85% to achieve balance.  

On the taxation side, repealing the 2017 tax cuts under the first Trump administration would generate almost $2 trillion over ten years, about a third of the amount needed to bring the budget into balance. Expanding the 2017 cuts is anticipated to increase the deficit by about $4 trillion over the next ten years.

The Take-Away

America’s budget deficit is large by any measure.

Budget deficits can negatively impact inflation, employment, and economic growth. While the actual impact has been small thus far, the impact of future deficits is not guaranteed to be the same.

The difficulty with reducing the budget deficit is the magnitude of spending cuts (or tax increases) needed to bring the budget into balance, particularly if some programs (such as entitlements and defense spending) are excluded.

‍

What is Long-Term Care?

Long-Term Care Facilities (LTCF) provide medical and personal care to seniors that is more difficult to provide or can’t be provided at home or within their communities. The Centers for Disease Control recognizes four types of LTCF: inpatient rehabilitation facilities, long-term care hospitals, certified nursing homes, and residential care communities. In all, about 2.5 million Americans are currently in LTCFs.

These facilities address different needs. People in rehabilitation facilities are there for short stays as part of their recovery from medical procedures (e.g., knee replacement). People in nursing homes or residential communities are generally permanent residents. Nursing homes provide higher levels of care compared to residential care facilities.

Trends in Senior Population

The American population is getting older. The number of Medicare recipients, which includes most persons aged 65+ and some permanently disabled persons, increased by over 30%, from 52.4 million in 2013 to 68.3 million in 2024. The number is expected to approach 80 million by 2030.

Cost of Care

The central issue of long-term care is cost. According to the federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the average annual cost of a private room in a skilled nursing home in 2024 was $127,750 or about $2 trillion total for the 2.5 million Americans currently in LTCFs. The federal government’s share, paid through the Medicare and Medicaid programs, is about $100 billion annually.  

Only about 10% of long-term care costs are paid by private insurance policies, as few Americans hold these policies. Most residents of LTCFs pay out-of-pocket until their assets are depleted and they qualify for Medicaid, which assumes the costs.

Total long-term costs are expected to rise annually by about 50% over the next decade to about $3 trillion. This figure is about 8% of predicted GDP (GDP is a measure of the size of the U. S. economy). The federal government’s share of spending will double to almost $200 billion annually.  

Alternatives to LTC

The Centers for Disease Control collects data on two alternatives to LTCFs: home health agencies and adult day services. Nearly 3 million seniors utilized home health agencies in 2020, along with 237,000 using adult day services (compared with roughly 2.5 million in all categories of LTCF).

Home health care provides flexibility for seniors who want to remain in their primary residence but don’t need the level of care provided by an LTCF. Similarly, adult day care centers provide many social and care benefits of LTCFs during normal working hours.

In theory, increased use of home health care would reduce long-term care costs if individuals who would otherwise enter an LTCF opted instead to remain at home. However, there are several issues. One is that home health care is itself expensive: in 2024, the average annual cost of full-time (44 hours per week) home health services was $77,792.

The second concern is that in some states, Medicare and Medicaid provide limited subsidies for home health care, meaning people receiving these services need private insurance or pay out of pocket. If federal subsidies were increased, many additional seniors (who are not otherwise planning a move to an LTCF) might apply for these services, reducing the savings from keeping a smaller number of people out of LTCFs.

Takeaway

The number of seniors in America is increasing, and life expectancies are also increasing. This combination is sharply increasing the demand for LTCFs.

Long-term care is expensive. Medicaid and Medicare remain the primary means for Americans to pay for these services. Relatively few Americans have private long-term care insurance.

Home health care is cheaper than long-term care, but it is unclear whether increasing its use (particularly with subsidies) will reduce the need or costs of long-term care.

‍

Contracts

The federal government has a multitude of agencies, bureaus, departments, commissions, corporations, offices, services, institutes, offices, and boards. All of these enter into different sorts of contracts, including subscriptions for news services, accounting services, data, etc. Federal contracts also pay for training, marketing support, cyber security, research, expert witnesses, software, outside legal consultants, and translation services. If there is a service, some arm of the federal government probably has a contract for it.

DOGE is reviewing federal contracts and canceling those it considers unnecessary or wasteful. As of mid-March 2025, DOGE has canceled 4,083 contracts associated with 52 government entities ranging from the Railroad Retirement Board to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). DOGE records nearly every cancellation with a link to the contract details housed in the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS), allowing citizens to see what the contracts were for and who in the agency was last responsible for securing and/or overseeing the contract. As of mid-March 2025, the total number of contact dollars canceled is over $32 billion.

The figure below shows the top-5 federal agencies and departments for canceled contracts based on total monetary value.

What Is Getting Cut?

In keeping with the Trump Administration’s goal of removing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts, 102 DEI training, support services, or assessment contracts have been terminated with a total savings of about $600 million. In addition, $1.7 billion was saved through 161 contract cancellations for expert witnesses, consultants, and outside experts. The data subscription services from Politico had 76 contracts ($14 million) canceled, and the financial news provider Bloomberg had 18 contracts ($5 million) canceled.

USAID saw the greatest cut in the number of contracts, with the highest dollar value in cuts. These contracts included a $3,949 contract for printing services in Pakistan, a $30,506 contract for packing security equipment to be shipped back to the U.S., a $169,995 Infoblox software license renewal, a $379,647 Zoom contract for a 12-month license of 50 users with up to 20,000 participants, and a $49 million task order contract supporting the restoration of essential services, strengthen good governance, and enabling economic recovery in Syria. The largest USAID cancellation was a $920 million contract to rebuild power generation facilities in Ukraine.

The largest single canceled contract across the entire government was a 7-year agreement from the Department of the Treasury ($1.9 billion). This contract is a purchase agreement distributed across Centennial Technology, Deloitte Consulting, Etelligent Group, Integrated Systems, and Noblis for new computing equipment, software, and support.

The smallest contract eliminated by DOGE was a $1,400 contract from the Department of Agriculture for facilitation services for the senior leadership of the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. Altogether, these small (< $10,000) contracts account for 1% of all contracts canceled.

Has This Happened Before?

Other administrations have tried to streamline government in limited ways, but none have operated as DOGE does. The United States Digital Service (USDS), created by President Obama and transformed into DOGE by President Trump, had a similar mission but a different approach. The USDS described itself as a government “start-up” that recruited experts from the tech world to improve government information systems. The USDS did have access to some government systems to realize technical gains but did not have any mandate to reduce spending or cut programs. Its mission was to make government more modernized and responsive to new digital communications and data-keeping needs.

Under President Clinton, Vice President Gore spearheaded the National Partnership for Reinventing Government (REGO). REGO’s mission was to bring government into the Internet era, make systems easier for users, and add performance metrics for government agencies. This program ran for 5 years, resulting in cuts to government programs, elimination of civil service jobs, and consolidation of some agencies. Unlike DOGE, the REGO effort first took 6 months to identify different parts of government that might be ripe for efficiency gains. Moreover, instead of prioritizing spending reductions, the aim was efficiency, transparency, and improving links between federal, state, and local governments.

REGO’s accomplishments included building a portal to file taxes online, improving hospital treatment times in the VA, and creating the FirstGov.gov website, a compendium of links to federal information that evolved into what is now USA.gov.

The Takeaway

DOGE was created to streamline and increase the efficiency of federal operations. Thus far, it has cut federal spending by about 32 billion dollars. The total amount saved by DOGE’s contract actions thus far is a small fraction (1.6%) of the federal budget deficit, which is approximately $2 trillion.

More substantial cost reductions may be generated if and when DOGE turns to reviewing entitlement programs.

There is no documented evidence of fraud for any terminated contracts. However, the notion of waste is subjective, and the contracts canceled are presumably considered wasteful by those making the decisions.

The long-term impacts of DOGE's approach—both in terms of cost savings and impacts on government policies—are not yet clear.

Sources of Congressional Authority

The Founding Fathers believed a strong and independent Congress was essential for a healthy democracy. Legislative authority helps to ensure that laws reflect the will of the people, provides a check on executive power, and promotes transparency and accountability in government. When Congress is weakened, the risk of executive overreach increases, and the voices of ordinary citizens may be drowned out. The legislative branch (particularly the House of Representatives) was designed to be closest to the people, with short terms of office and smaller constituencies.

In the modern era, congressional authority derives from the Constitution’s formal powers and the informal soft powers it asserts against the Executive and Judicial branches. Article I specifies specific congressional powers, like forming a postal service, regulating weights and measures, appropriating funds, and declaring war.

Delegates at the 1787 Constitutional Convention designed Congress as the branch of government most responsive to citizens’ demands. They opted for a delegate model of representative democracy in which Members of Congress are empowered to govern by their mandate from the people. Thus, authority is both limited in scope and derives from the assent of the governed.

Congress is also the only branch of government given the authority to remove actors from other branches through impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate. While rarely used, this power checks potential abuses of power by the other branches.

Much of the modern Congress’ authority derives from its control over taxation and the ‘power of the purse’ - the ability to enact annual federal budgets over a presidential veto. This funding authority also gives Congress oversight over executive agencies, which congressional committees use to bring Cabinet officials or lower-ranking bureaucrats before them to answer questions. These investigations can influence public opinion and highlight executive branch missteps.

Congress also exercises ‘soft power’ over other branches of government. For example, the Senate’s confirmation authority of Presidential appointments constrains a President’s choices, as the nominees must be acceptable to a majority of Senators. Congress can add provisions to proposals that constrain how they are implemented and use the Administrative Procedures Act to shape the writing of new rules and regulations. Similar to funding authority, these congressional soft powers can shape public opinion and help hold the executive branch accountable.

Challenges to Congressional Authority

As early as President Thomas Jefferson in 1803, when he refused to purchase gunboats funded by Congress, Presidents have sometimes defied Congressional budgets. The Constitution gives Congress the power to appropriate funds, though it does not explicitly state whether those funds must be spent. Until the 1970s, this power to underfund projects, known as impoundment, was generally seen as just that: a President has the right not to spend all funds allocated by Congress but still must spend funds in the spirit of Congress’s intent.

In 1974, Congress passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act to curtail this power. The Act allows a President to impound appropriated funds for 45 days, after which Congress must agree or the funds must be spent. President Nixon subsequently refused to spend any money on a project he opposed. The Supreme Court ruled in 1975’s Train v. City of New York that impoundment is unconstitutional when it intentionally obstructs the will of Congress.

The case of impoundments illustrates another critical fact about legislative authority: Members of Congress must choose to exercise their powers. Even in the case of impoundments, Members of Congress must be willing to go to court to counter a President who refuses to spend appropriated funds. As of this writing, it is unclear whether contemporary courts would uphold the Train decision.

Finally, while Congress (the Senate, in particular) has the Constitutional authority to confirm Presidential appointments, Congress passed the Tenure in Office Act in 1866 via veto override to formalize its authority to prevent a President from firing an appointee unilaterally. When President Andrew Johnson fired the popular Secretary of War in 1867 despite the Act, Congress impeached the President and came one vote short of removing him from office in the Senate. Congress eventually repealed the Act, so Presidents today have broad authority to fire appointees, even after Senate confirmation.

The Take Away

Congressional power derives from the Constitution’s formal powers, such as the power of the purse, and informal powers, such as those conveyed by the Administrative Procedures Act.

Even after almost 250 years, important details of legislative authority (such as congressional control of impoundments) are still uncertain.

Example: USAID

One of the first agencies where terminations occurred is the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Congress has tasked USAID with delivering foreign aid to other countries, including food assistance, economic development initiatives, and programs to build democratic institutions and strengthen civil society. Its annual budget is about $40 billion, and as of January 2025, it had almost 12,000 employees.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order halting all foreign aid for 90 days. In the following weeks, most USAID employees were put on paid administrative leave and later formally terminated, reducing the agency’s headcount to less than a thousand. Their dismissals are currently the subject of federal court proceedings.

Civil Service and Federal Employment

The core tenet of a civil service system is that people are hired based on merit and cannot be removed from their positions except “for cause,” such as poor performance or malfeasance. Federal termination processes are complicated, and employees have many opportunities to appeal or delay. As a result, pre-2025, very few federal civil servants were terminated for cause each year, data suggests less than a thousand out of a total workforce of several million.

The only other way to end a civil servant’s employment is through a reduction in force (RIF), where the federal government terminates workers because of funding shortages or the elimination of an entire agency, office, or program. We will consider RIFs in a future brief, but it is important to understand that the USAID terminations did not involve a RIF.

The USAID Workforce

The figure below shows the different types of workers at USAID.

USAID is not unique in its reliance on contract workers. Of the 2,150 employees at the National Science Foundation, 1,500 are civil servants, 450 are administrative contractors, and 200 are scientists hired on short-term contracts. Eliminating over 30% of the agency’s workforce (650 contractors, temporary employees, and probationary civil servants) is relatively easy. A RIF would be needed to implement further cuts.

Additional Considerations: Congressional Budgeting

A major unresolved issue in the terminations at USAID and elsewhere is whether they violate Congress’ “power of the purse” - the power to control agency actions by enacting annual appropriations bills that set an agency’s budget and direct how it should be spent. In the case of USAID, terminating almost all of the agency’s employees and related resources makes it impossible to continue the agency’s programs as Congress funded them.

In the coming months, federal court decisions will determine whether the terminations at USAID and other agencies were constitutional. However, it is important to understand that the major question in these cases is not whether the terminations violated civil service regulations – rather, it is whether agencies must be given the personnel needed to carry out congressional budget mandates.

The Take Away

The USAID example shows that significant workforce reductions can be made in many federal agencies without a RIF and without violating civil service regulations.

The unresolved question is whether the terminations violate Congress’ power to shape agency actions through appropriations bills.

What is the Problem Solvers Caucus?

The Problem Solvers Caucus is a bipartisan collection of Congressional members established in 2017, with balanced representation equally between Republicans and Democrats. One suggestion from the group is to establish an independent fiscal commission similar to the 1990s-era Defense Secretary’s Commission on Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC).

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)

The Commission on BRAC was chartered by the Department of Defense on May 3, 1988 towards the end of the Cold War when it became apparent that the U.S. had more military bases and facilities than needed to support a smaller military force. The purpose of the Commission on BRAC was to recommend military installations within the U.S., its commonwealths, territories and possessions for realignment and closure. Base closures are politically difficult choices for elected officials, as military bases bring employment and spending to the communities they are located in. Importantly, members of the House and Senate were not allowed to alter the list (add or remove bases). Their only option was to disapprove the list by majority vote – if they did not, the realignment and closures would be implemented.

There were five rounds of BRAC deliberations between 1988 and 2005. None of the recommendations were disapproved by Congress. Overall, dozens of bases were closed with annual savings of over $12 billion as of the early 2000s.

A BRAC Approach to Deficit Reduction

The Problem Solvers Caucus has proposed a BRAC-like process to develop a proposal for deficit reduction. (A similar idea was made by Representative Bill Huizenga (R-MI), the Fiscal Commission Act of 2023.) Their proposal does not specify all the details, but the idea would be to name a commission composed of legislators (equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats) and outside experts. The commission would develop a long-term plan to reduce federal deficits through spending cuts and tax increases. Depending on the commission’s mandate, all programs could be subject to cuts, or some (like Social Security) could be excluded.

The most important aspect of a BRAC-like plan would be the details of congressional consideration. One possibility mirrors the original BRAC process: the proposal would go into effect unless a majority of House members and Senators disapproved. The proposal could also be considered as an ordinary legislative proposal, meaning that it would require majority support from the House and Senate to go into effect.

‍An Example: The Super Committee

There is one historical example of a BRAC-like deficit reduction commission. In 2011, the Budget Control Act created the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, commonly called the Super Committee. The committee's objective was to achieve a minimum deficit reduction of $1.5 trillion from 2012 to 2021. The Super Committee comprised twelve members from the House and Senate, with an equal split of six Republicans and six Democrats. Seven votes were required to approve a deficit reduction proposal.

While the Super Committee’s recommendations required congressional approval, the Act also mandated a sequester, $1.2 trillion in across-the-board spending cuts if the Super Committee failed to produce a proposal or if Congress failed to approve it. The only programs exempted from the sequester were Social Security, Medicaid, some federal welfare programs, and interest on the national debt.

In the end, the members of the Super Committee could not reach a consensus, and no proposal was reported to Congress. The sequester took effect, capping spending on most government spending from 2013 until 2021.

The Take Away

The Problem Solvers Caucus is one of the few groups in Congress working towards a bipartisan deficit reduction plan.

The BRAC experience offers a model for developing a proposal for deficit reduction.

Based on the Super Committee experience, one key element to a successful deficit reduction commission will be some form of guaranteed spending cuts that take effect if no bipartisan deal is reached.

Democratic Party Proposals

There is no official Democratic Party position on deficit reduction, either by the national organization or the Democratic Caucuses in the House and Senate. Most comments by Democratic officeholders critique the Republican deficit-reduction proposals discussed in previous briefs without offering alternatives

Representative Chris Pappas

Representative Chris Pappas of New Hampshire introduced the Fighting Budget Waste Act as his first bill of the 119th Congress. This bill mandates that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) use the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) annual report to identify and eliminate wasteful and redundant federal programs. The report has been released annually for the last two decades, yielding billions in spending reductions.

The largest potential saving identified in the 2024 GAO report is Medicare Site Neutrality, whereby the Medicare program would not pay higher hospital rates for procedures performed at a hospital-owned medical office. As we discussed in our introduction to deficit reduction, this proposal is one of the few that attracts bipartisan congressional support and is likely to be part of any deficit reduction proposal. Estimates are that this change would generate $136 billion in savings over the next ten years.

Unfortunately, the other items in the GAO report would generate much lower savings, on the order of several billion dollars per year. For example, GAO recommends that the Department of Education verify reported incomes in the Federal Student Loan Income-Driven Repayment Program. GAO estimates that verification would identify enough underreported income to increase loan payments by two billion dollars over ten years. While implementing such changes is important to demonstrate government efficiency, it will not substantially reduce deficits.

Senator Elizabeth Warren

In a letter to Elon Musk as the leader of DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency), an initiative of the second Trump administration tasked with reducing federal spending, Senator Elizabeth Warren offered ideas quite different from the Republican approaches discussed thus far. She listed 30 specific cuts that would be supported by congressional Democrats and would satisfy the 2 trillion dollar goal of cuts announced at the start of the Trump administration.

Warren’s letter details approaches rather than specific program cuts. For example, she notes that past Department of Defense Inspector General reports documented overbilling by government contractors and suggests that an investigation of current contracts could yield considerable savings. Similarly, she proposes greater oversight of private insurers who provide Medicare Advantage policies to seniors, noting that previous studies have suggested that the government is being overcharged by up to $83 billion per year.

Other Democratic Party Proposals

A third approach has been offered by Democratic House members who are part of the Problem-Solvers Caucus, a group of Republican and Democratic representatives who work to develop bipartisan proposals for issues such as deficit reduction. Our final brief on deficit reduction focuses on their efforts.

The Take-Away

There is no official Democratic Party position on how to accomplish deficit reduction.

Proposals made by individual Democratic legislators highlight the very real differences in policy priorities between the two parties.

Democratic ideas focus on uncovering waste and fraud, particularly in defense programs and health care. The amount of potential savings and policy consequences are unknown.

The efforts of the Problem-Solvers Caucus - the only organized group in Congress currently working to develop a bipartisan deficit reduction plan - may offer a path to a bipartisan deficit reduction proposal.

What is a Sovereign Wealth Fund?

A SWF is an investment fund created by nations or states. Most SWFs tap revenue from sales of state-controlled oil, gas, or other natural resources. The typical SWF serves as a way for a country or state to ensure future revenues through investment returns long after the resource that funded it is no longer being developed. China, Hong Kong, and Singapore have SWFs that are not based primarily on resource revenues.

What are the Top-10 SWFs in the world right now? What about American states?

The largest SWF (over $1.7 trillion in value) is Norway’s pension fund, which invests in petroleum revenues. It is followed by China ($1.3 trillion) and Hong Kong ($1.1 trillion). The table below shows the ten largest SWFs in the world.

Many industrialized countries, including Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Russia, have smaller sovereign wealth funds. 23 U.S. states have SWFs funded by resource revenues, totaling over $332 billion in assets. The Alaska Permanent Fund, valued at over $76 billion, is by far the largest.

How well have SWFs performed over time?

Most SWFs do not disclose their financial returns. Because SWFs are designed to safeguard invested funds for the long-term, which means in strong markets they typically earn less, and in down market returns (and protection from losses) can be greater. For example, in 2024, Norway’s SWF returned $222 billion (13%) in profits in a year when the S&P 500, an index of the largest U.S. companies, returned over 24%. The Alaska Permanent Fund has returned an average of 8.1% annually between 2015 and 2025.  

The Take-Away

Creating a U.S. sovereign wealth fund would not be unusual. Many industrialized countries have SWFs.

Compared to the larger SWFs worldwide, the key difference for a U.S. SWF would be its funding source. Most large SWFs are funded by natural resource sales. In the U.S., most of these assets are owned by individuals or corporations.

A U.S. SWF could be funded by assets confiscated from criminals (including bitcoins), or by sales of public lands, offshore oil and natural gas leases, communication spectrum, or other government assets. The potential amount of funds is likely less than most large national SWFs.

Moreover, in the short-term, diverting revenue from asset sales to a U.S. SWF would increase the federal budget deficit, as most of these funds are currently counted as revenue.

‍

What does the federal bureaucracy do?

The federal bureaucracy consists of all agencies within the Executive Branch of government, from Cabinet departments like the Department of Defense to independent agencies (those not part of departments) like NASA, and regulatory agencies such as the Federal Aviation Administration. Overall, nearly 3 million Americans work for the federal government.

Under America’s Constitution, Congress and the President make laws and bureaucrats implement these laws. Sometimes implementation is simple and straightforward – for example, an appropriations resolution might direct bureaucrats in the Department of Defense to purchase 20 F-16 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin for use by the Air Force. Bureaucrats would then prepare a contract, send payments, and take delivery.

Other laws set out broad goals, then direct bureaucrats to determine how these goals should be achieved. Bureaucrats respond by developing new rules - a regulation, directive, or procedure - that implements the goals. For example, after Congress enacted the Clean Air Act in 1970, it gave bureaucrats the job of determining which chemicals should be regulated and what limits should be placed on cars, factories, and other emitters of such chemicals.

Why don’t members of Congress develop rules on their own? The answer is that Congress has limited time, resources, and expertise. The intent is by letting bureaucrats make rules, it allows them to act based on their experience and expertise.  And, as we discuss later, members of Congress have various ways to overturn rules that they disapprove of.

How does rulemaking work?

The rulemaking process in the federal bureaucracy is governed by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), enacted in 1947, and the Congressional Review Act (CRA), enacted in 1996. The APA sets out a process for bureaucrats to draft rules, release the drafts for comment (including notifying Congress), revise the rules, and only then put the revised rules into effect. The CRA also provides a mechanism for members of Congress to overturn proposed rules that they disapprove of.

The CRA divides rules into two groups, major and minor. Major rules would cause more than a $100 million change in the gross domestic product or would cause major changes in prices or employment. Of the thousands of rules that bureaucrats write each year, only a small fraction each year are major rules, as shown in the figure below.

What checks the federal bureaucracy?

At first glance, the rulemaking process gives enormous power to the federal bureaucracy. What prevents bureaucrats from writing rules that reflect their policy ideas rather than congressional directives? To begin with, bureaucrats must inform members of Congress about proposed rules. Congress can also demand testimony from agency personnel in oversight hearings or during the annual budgeting process.

Moreover, the CRA allows Congress to overturn proposed regulations by majority vote in the House and Senate using a joint resolution – a type of proposal that can be brought to the floor for a vote even if party leaders disapprove. Members of Congress can also change policy by adding language to the annual agency budget or by passing new legislation to clarify their expectations.  

Presidential authority over agencies is more limited. Presidents can appoint new agency leadership and change proposed agency budgets. However, when agencies are given directives in the form of new legislation, only Congress has the power to change these directives or reverse proposed rules.

These mechanisms give legislators and the President a means to bring bureaucratic rules back in line with the goals specified in legislation. In practice, elected officials sometimes do nothing in these cases because they prefer the bureaucracy’s interpretation of a piece of legislation against the measure’s original goals. Particularly in cases of divided government (each party controls one House of Congress), it may be hard to build coalitions to reverse bureaucratic actions.  

Individuals and businesses affected by a new rule can also bring a case to federal court claiming that bureaucrats went beyond their congressional mandate. Under the so-called Chevron doctrine (named after a court case, Chevron v. NRDC), courts would allow new rules to stand as long as an agency could argue that it had acted based on experience and expertise. This doctrine was overturned by a recent Supreme Court case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Going forward, courts will likely defer less to bureaucratic decisions and have more power to decide for themselves if an agency has misused its authority.

The Take-Away

Members of Congress have various ways to learn about and reverse bureaucratic decisions they disapprove of. Presidents have important indirect powers, including proposing new agency budgets and senior agency leadership. Bureaucratic rulemaking is also subject to review by the courts.

Whether these safeguards prevent all bureaucratic wrongdoing is an open question. From 2001-2022, only 20 rules were overturned using the CRA procedure. It appears that members of Congress are generally satisfied by the outcome of the rulemaking process. Further research is needed to determine whether this outcome arises because bureaucrats stay close to legislative goals when making rules, or whether they deviate from goals in ways that members of Congress approve of.

‍

‍

Challenges in Deficit Reduction

There is no easy, painless way to eliminate the federal deficit. Critics of excessive federal spending claim that substantial savings can be found by eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse,” in many cases those government programs are less popular or tailored to only a certain group of people. The reality is that many federal programs have a meaningful impact across the U.S.. As a result, any successful deficit reduction proposal must overcome the fact that it will reduce benefits or impose costs on many Americans.

The Deepest Cuts Under Consideration

The largest Republican deficit-reduction proposals were developed by Republican members of the Ways and Means Committee. Some of these measures reduce the deficit by generating increased tax revenue. Others cut the deficit by reducing future federal spending. The top 5 proposals based on the predicted 10-year deficit reduction are shown in the figure below.

The largest deficit reduction proposal in the list is a 10% tariff on all imports, expected to generate $1.9 trillion in revenue over 10 years. However, the risk is that increased U.S. tariffs would lead other countries to increase their tariffs on American exports. As a result, this proposal faces opposition from Republican lawmakers and constituents in communities where the local economy largely depends on imports and exports.

The Border Adjustment Tax would make two changes. First, businesses would no longer be able to deduct the cost of imported goods when calculating their taxable income (the income they pay taxes on to the federal government). Under the new policy, companies that use imported goods would pay higher taxes, increasing federal revenue but potentially increasing the cost which companies charge for certain products and services.

The second part of the Border Adjustment Tax would exempt American businesses from paying taxes on exports – sales of products and services to other countries. This measure would lower federal tax revenue. After combining the two provisions, the Border Adjustment Tax is expected to generate $1.2 trillion in new tax revenue over 10 years. This proposal failed to be enacted in 2016 because of opposition from large retailers.

The next two largest proposals would eliminate two provisions of the tax code: the home mortgage interest deduction (MID) and the deduction for state and local taxes (SALT). If implemented, these two proposals would each increase federal tax revenue by about $1 trillion over ten years.

The MID allows American homeowners to subtract interest paid on home mortgages when calculating their taxable income (the income they pay taxes on to the federal government). Given typical home values, allowing for MID may disproportionately benefit more established individuals and families, specifically those higher-income taxpayers who often own more expensive homes. Although eliminating the MID will help reduce the federal deficit, all homeowners with a mortgage would be subject to paying more in federal tax. Republican legislators decided to maintain this deduction in the defining reconciliation bill of the first Trump Administration, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.

SALT allows Americans to deduct taxes paid to state and local governments when calculating their taxable income. The Ways and Means proposal would eliminate this deduction. Currently, the deduction is capped at $10,000 per family, however, members of both parties (including Republican House members from high-tax states such as California and New York) have proposed increasing the deduction.

The fifth item on the Ways and Means list is a cap on federal Medicaid payments, coming in at a projected $900 billion of savings over 10 years. Currently, for every dollar a state spends on Medicaid services, it receives between $1 and $3 from the federal government, with no limits on total payments. The proposal would set a per-person cap on federal payments. The cap would be adjusted for inflation but not for other increases in medical costs. Over time, states with higher medical costs would have to cover these increases themselves, find ways to save money, or cut services. Republican governors opposed this change when it was first proposed in 2017.

The Take Away

There are no easy ways to address the federal budget deficit. Proposals that significantly reduce spending generate opposition because they impose significant costs on individuals and businesses.

One potential strategy is to combine several of these proposals, hoping the combined deficit reduction will be large enough to build support even from individuals or businesses negatively impacted by some of these deficit reducing measures.

As a whole, Republicans’ voting history reflects a more favorable view on cost cutting measures over Democrats. However, because not all Republicans share the same view across all federal programs, and Republicans have very narrow majorities in the House and the Senate, a few defectors from the Republican party can make enacting many of the proposed deficit-reduction proposals unlikely.

Congress, regardless of party affiliation, will need to work together, and all Americans will need to accept some level of financial pain to make any meaningful progress in reducing our national debt.

‍

Introduction to Congressional Budgeting and Budget-Cutting

Under current congressional rules, deficit reductions are implemented by a process called reconciliation. Reconciliation allows Congress to pass budget-related legislation in an expedited manner with a simple majority in the Senate. This process was created under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. While reconciliation is primarily a tool designed to implement spending controls and deficit reduction, it has also been used to advance significant changes, such as the 2010 Affordable Care Act, the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.

Under reconciliation, the House and Senate adopt a reconciliation directive that sets the spending levels and deficit reduction targets and a deadline to vote on these proposals. Individual committees then prepare spending proposals for the agencies and programs they oversee. Then, the House and Senate Budget Committees roll the proposals together into one large bill. The rules limit debate to 20 hours, and the bill is not subject to the filibuster, meaning that instead of having 60 Senators in support, reconciliation bills pass with just a simple majority in the Senate.

The impact of reconciliation depends on whether control of the federal government is unified or divided. Americans currently have a unified government, meaning the same party (Republicans) controls both Houses of Congress and the Presidency. Before the 2024 elections, control was divided, with a Democratic President, a Democratic-majority Senate, and a Republican House.

With a divided government, reconciliation generally leads to one of two outcomes: budgets that preserve the status quo (few new initiatives and little deficit reduction) or deals that use ideas from both parties to significantly cut future deficits. With a unified government, deficit reduction tends to be highly partisan, dominated by proposals favored by one party and opposed by the other.

An Example: The House Budget Committee Proposal

The first deficit-cutting proposal released in 2025 was developed by the House Budget Committee, Chaired by Republican Jodey Arrington of Texas. The proposal outlines spending cuts totaling $5.7 trillion over the next 10 years. Some of these cuts involve freezing program spending at current levels, while others mandate real, immediate spending cuts.

Everything Policy’s initial analysis of the Budget Committee document found only three proposals that received Democratic support:

• Medicare Site Neutrality ($146 billion). Hospitals can charge higher fees—sometimes up to five times more—for the same services performed in outpatient settings simply because the hospital owns the facility. Site-neutral payment reform seeks to equalize payment rates for identical procedures for Medicare recipients (seniors), regardless of where they are performed. Senators from both parties have expressed support for this reform.

• Eliminate the TANF Contingency Fund ($6 billion). The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Contingency Fund was established in 1996 to support states during an economic downturn. President Trump proposed eliminating the Contingency Fund, and in 2016, President Obama proposed repurposing it.

• Rescind unspent COVID Money ($11 billion). Members of both parties have made similar proposals. In 2023, House Speaker McCarthy proposed rescinding unspent funds, and though some Democratic lawmakers disagreed, President Biden agreed with this provision.

The important point is that the savings from these three proposals are only a small fraction (about 3%) of the total savings in the House Budget Committee proposal. The rest of the spending cuts are favored by Republicans and opposed by Democrats. This pattern is exactly what is likely to be expected given a unified government.  

The Take Away

Under current conditions of unified government, any successful deficit reduction proposal will largely reflect the policy preferences of the Republican party, as they control the House, Senate, and the Presidency.

Democrats may offer deficit-cutting proposals (including tax increases), but these are unlikely to be added to the Reconciliation bill written by the Republican-controlled Budget Committees.

The extent of Republican budget-cutting efforts and the potential impact is not known at this point: Republicans have narrow majorities in the House (217-210) and in the Senate (53-47), giving individual Republican legislators enormous negotiating power over what proposals appear in the final reconciliation bill. Actual spending cuts may be far lower than the Budget Committee’s and others’ ambitious goals.

‍

The trend in car thefts

As shown in the figure below, car thefts have surged by almost 40 percent to historically high levels across the U.S., even as most other crime rates have declined. Concerns about cross-border car theft in parts of the U.S. that border Mexico have been known for decades. This raises a question: Is this specific type of crime concentrated in areas with higher migrant populations?

Data Sources

As in our previous work on crime and migration, we focus on 57 cities that are members of the Major Cities Chiefs Association. Migrant population data is from the Transactional Records Access Center (TRAC) at Syracuse University. This data identifies 415 U.S. counties with 1,000 or more migrants involved in deportation proceedings. These proceedings include individuals denied asylum, visa overstays, or those who entered the U.S. without authorization and came to the attention of authorities. Data on auto thefts is from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting database and measures the change between 2019 and 2023 in car thefts per 100 thousand residents.

Car Theft and Migrant Populations

The figure below shows the relationship between migration and car thefts. Some city names have been omitted to allow for greater visibility of trends in the graph. While the trend line shows a very slight positive relationship between the two variables, the fact that the data points are spread out from the trend line suggests that many other local factors are at play. Some potential variables that could be contributing to an increase in car theft include variances in the availability and funding of local resources, policing standards, differences in community outreach programs, bail reform, local economic conditions, the extent of community-wide drug use and addiction, and the popularity of certain makes and models of cars.

Two notable outliers illustrate the complexity of this issue:

• Miami, FL: With the highest share of immigrants among major U.S. cities, Miami experienced the largest reduction in car thefts from 2019 to 2023.
• Boston, MA: Boston, with an immigrant share about half that of Miami, recorded the greatest 4-year increase in car theft crimes.

Another way to see this complexity is to look at communities in the chart with about 4 percent migrants. The over-time change in car thefts for cities in this range goes from declines of almost 90 percent (Tampa) to increases of nearly 200 percent (Charlotte-Mecklenburg).

It is also important to note that this data does not account for the identity of criminals who steal cars. While there have been some noted instances where the identity of those involved in a car theft have been undocumented immigrants, car thefts are a hard crime to assess by perpetrator, as 90% of all car thefts go unsolved.

Other Trends in Car Theft

A surprising driver of recent car thefts in the U.S. stems from a viral 2022 TikTok video. The video demonstrated a vulnerability in specific Hyundai and Kia vehicles, leading to a surge in thefts. The issue got so bad that 18 state attorneys general urged the federal government to order a recall. Such trends highlight the role of external, non-immigration-related factors in shaping car theft rates. Kia and Hyundai paid a 200 million dollar class action settlement for their part in selling vehicles with these security concerns.

The Take-Away

Communities with high migrant populations have slightly higher rates of auto theft – but the correlation between these factors is not fully substantiated.

Any analysis of this relationship is limited because many car thefts are not reported, few cases are ever solved, and databases do not record racial or ethnic data for the perpetrators.

In general, car theft rates appear more likely driven by local factors such as economic conditions, policing strategies, and even the prevalence of certain car models.

What’s happening nationally?

Nationally, median home values have increased 63.6% from 2010 to 2023. During this same time period, median household income has risen at a slower pace, 50%. This data indicates that in general home ownership is becoming less affordable relative to income. However, this comparison may hide important cross-community differences: trends in rural areas or suburbs may be very different than in high-population urban areas.

What’s happening to local home prices?

We use an urban-rural scale developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture that divides counties into nine groups based on their population, the size of the largest community, and whether the county is next to a major urban center. For our analysis, we collapse this scale into four groups: metropolitan or urban counties, micropolitan or suburban counties, rural counties adjacent to a metro county, and isolated rural counties. Our analysis includes 3000+ counties in the U.S., excluding Connecticut and Washington DC because of missing data.

The first chart below shows these four groups’ average home price increases from 2010 - 2023. Based on the data, prices increased throughout the nation. However, contrary to the majority of media coverage placing emphasis on home prices in large cities, the greatest price increases have occurred in rural communities.

The next chart compares the increase in average home prices in each group of counties to the change in average household income. We do this by creating a ratio, dividing each county’s change in home prices by the change in average income. A ratio of greater than one means that home price increases outpaced income over time, making home ownership less affordable. A ratio of less than one means that homes became more affordable.

In every county type, home prices increased more than household incomes. However, there is variation. Rural counties saw, by a notable amount, the highest growth in home values relative to income. Put another way, while housing has become less affordable throughout the U.S. over the last decade for most, those living in rural communities that are far from major metropolitan areas are experiencing the greatest challenges related to housing affordability.

The Takeaway

Even as large metropolitan areas have received much media coverage for housing affordability, rural areas have experienced the largest spikes in home prices since 2010.

Across both urban and rural communities, growth in average income has lagged behind increases in housing prices, although the greatest disparities are in rural areas.

What is health insurance, and how do Americans get it?

Most Americans have some form of health insurance. The details of these policies (whether private or government-provided, what treatments are covered or not, which doctors and facilities can be accessed, how much they cost, and who pays) shape the quality of care an individual receives.

Health insurance operates like other kinds of insurance. Individuals pay a monthly fee or premium. In exchange, insurance providers pay the individuals’ medical costs. Policies generally limit the total amount a provider will pay, require recipients to pay a share of costs (a co-pay), and limit the treatments they will pay for. To make health insurance a sustainable for-profit industry, healthy and less-healthy individuals must subscribe and pay premiums. That way, premiums from healthy people to some degree help offset the health care of sick people.

While over 90 percent of Americans have health insurance, the way they receive coverage varies, as shown in the figure below.

Over the last century, employment-based coverage (insurance provided to employees as part of compensation) has become the most common form of coverage in the U.S.. However, most retired Americans receive health insurance through Medicare. Medicare is funded by premiums from recipients, payroll deductions from employed Americans, and federal and state subsidies. A second government program, Medicaid, pays for health care for poor Americans, long-term care for seniors, and kidney dialysis. A third government program, the Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP), covers health care for children in low-income families whose incomes do not qualify for Medicaid.

Finally, individuals who do not have employer-provided insurance and who do not qualify for one of the federal programs can purchase health insurance either directly from an insurance company or through federal exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”).

American health-care outcomes

Americans spend a great deal of money on health care. In 2023, about one of every five dollars spent in America goes to pay for some form of health care. In 1960, the figure was one out of every twenty dollars. The average cost of employer-provided health insurance for the average-sized American family is about $26,600 annually. Of this sum, about $6,600 is paid by the family in the form of insurance premiums and co-pays, and the employer pays the rest.

The United States spends about twice as much per person on health care compared to countries like France, Sweden, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Despite this high level of spending, the U.S. ranks last in overall health outcomes among peer countries, with the lowest life expectancy and high disease rates. Moreover, the U.S. spends over 3.75 times as much on health-care administration as peer countries. Administrative costs have been the single largest growth sector in rising health-care costs in the last decade, with these costs now accounting for more than 40% of the total expenses of patient care in U.S. hospitals.

Why is health-care so hard to reform?

America spends more on health care than other developed countries yet lags behind these nations on several important indicators. This section begins to unpack the factors driving this outcome.

Demographics

As the U.S. population gets older and sicker, care costs have risen, especially the federally funded Medicare program, which has seen substantial growth in enrollments and costs in the last twenty years. In addition, most Medicaid funds are used to pay for long-term care for senior citizens. Any changes to these programs will affect the lives of nearly 40 million citizens, most of whom are retired with limited assets.

Fragmentation

U.S. states are the primary level of government that regulates insurance. This structure is due to anti-monopoly regulations written in the 1950’s. This system, where states become individual health-care markets, means each state has its own requirements, regulations, and costs. Large insurance companies like Blue Cross/Blue Shield also run state-by-state. This setup ensures that private insurers cannot become monopolies but also makes the landscape of health insurance much more complex. Coverage, costs, and other factors vary greatly across states.

Urban-Rural Disparities

The relative decline in the rural population has led to many hospital and medical center closures over the last 30 years. As a result, rural Americans have higher travel times to access medical care than their suburban and urban counterparts. They access health-care providers less frequently, which has led to measurable declines in health outcomes in rural districts in the U.S..

Economic Inequality

Rising economic inequality has also made the provision of health care more challenging, in part because chronic disease is associated with poverty. On average, the wealthiest Americans live 10-15 years longer than their poorest counterparts. Chronic disease is both an outcome and a cause of economic hardship.

Personal Circumstances

Individual choices, such as decisions about exercise, smoking, nutrition, supplements, illegal drugs, and regular checkups, also affect healthcare outcomes to some extent. For example, efforts to improve preventative care by reducing the cost of actual checkups will only change outcomes if people take advantage of this opportunity.

Making Decisions About Care

The central question behind almost any public spending is, who deserves what? Is access to health care a right? And if so, how much health care is anyone entitled to? These questions often raise conflict because they address our philosophies of what the government should be doing.

When surveyed, most Americans agree some restrictions should be considered. For example, people over the age of 75 generally cannot easily obtain organ transplants, even if they can pay out-of-pocket. However, Americans disagree on many questions, from whether insurance should cover expensive, experimental treatments to whether insurance should be provided to the unemployed.

The fragmented nature of America’s health-care system (including private insurers and the various federal programs) means there is no uniform standard for determining who has access to which treatments. Treatment options vary across communities and even from case to case. The care someone receives in Michigan may differ greatly from what they would receive in Mississippi. Two people living in Michigan may receive very different care because their employers purchased policies from different insurers or because one has a private policy while the other relies on Medicaid.

Moreover, because the health-care system is fragmented, there is limited opportunity if any to make trade-offs between different kinds of health care – for example, should America invest in making treatments available for some advanced cancers or use the same money to improve care for pregnant mothers or newborns? There is currently no central platform to have a national conversation to determine how much we should spend on health care and how these funds should be spent.

The Take-Away

Americans pay substantially more for health care than individuals in other developed countries. However, Americans have lower life expectancies and higher disease rates than in other developed countries.  

Reforming America’s health-care system is not easy. Changes need to address the medical complexities of treating illnesses and keeping people healthy while simultaneously addressing health-related implications of an aging population, a fragmented insurance market, regional gaps in care availability, and economic inequality. The impact of reforms also depend on how individuals adapt to these changes.  

We do not know how much ballot harvesting occurs. In some isolated cases, individuals have been convicted of collecting and tampering with absentee votes. However, research by Everything Policy finds that most states have voting procedures that reduce the incentives for widespread ballot harvesting.

For widespread ballot harvesting to work, four things must be true about a state’s election procedures:

• No-excuse absentee voting (otherwise, there will be few ballots to harvest)
• Non-relatives are allowed to collect and return absentee ballots
• Higher limits on the number of ballots that one individual can return
• Widespread use of drop boxes (less scrutiny of people returning ballots)

As shown below, only 13 states satisfy all four requirements above. They range from California to Wyoming, mostly strong Democrat-controlled states, with two Republican-controlled states (Montana and Wyoming) and one swing state (Nevada.) Five of the 13 (California, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington) use statewide vote-by-mail.

This finding does not mean that substantial ballot harvesting occurs in any of these 13 states; it is just that their election procedures make this activity legal and may potentially favor one political party over another. The remaining states are less likely to have substantial ballot harvesting because this behavior is explicitly illegal or a low-benefit-high-cost activity.

The Take-Away

Ballot harvesting, or the distribution and collection of absentee ballots, is regulated by state law.

The potential for fraudulent ballot harvesting varies across states.

Only 13 states have electoral rules that make fraudulent ballot harvesting worthwhile.

Measuring job growth

As of January 2024, the civilian federal workforce (excluding contractors, military personnel, and the Postal Service) was about 2.9 million people, or just over 2% of the private sector workforce (135 million people). The figure below compares total federal employment to employment in other levels of government and several economic sectors. The data is from FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data).

The figure shows that federal employment is lower than employment in major economic sectors and in state and local governments (the latter includes K-12 teachers and staff). The largest sector, services, contains a large majority of the private non-farm workforce.

Everything Policy’s analysis of federal and private sector hiring uses official monthly job growth data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The data is based on a survey of about 119,000 businesses to determine the number of employees on their payrolls (excluding agriculture). The data is adjusted to subtract seasonal changes, such as temporary jobs created during the holiday season. The BLS also surveys federal agencies (but not state and local governments) to assess their hiring rates.

There is no doubt that federal government hiring sometimes dominates job data. For example, in August 2024, total jobs growth was 37,000, but federal hiring totaled 45,000 – meaning that without government hiring, the economy would have lost jobs. Similarly, in October 2024, total job growth was -28,000 due to the impact of Hurricanes Helene and Milton. However, at the same time, the economy added 40,000 federal jobs, so the change in total employment without government hiring would have been -68,000

The chart below shows average monthly private-sector and federal government new jobs for 2010 - 2024. The solid line shows the average job growth for the entire American economy. Because of the COVID pandemic, job creation was sharply lower in 2020 and markedly higher in 2021 and 2022. Excluding these years, the average total job growth is about 180,000 per month and does not vary significantly across years. The dotted line shows the average change for new federal government jobs. Again, excluding the pandemic years, the average is about 30 thousand per month, with declines in some years and increases in others.

How do these yearly changes add up to long-term trends?  The chart below uses FRED data to compare the growth of the federal workforce from 2014 to 2024 to the growth of employment in major economic sectors and state and local governments. (We start in 2014 to avoid bias due to the employment losses caused by the Great Recession of 2007 - 2010.)

The chart shows that federal employment has grown slightly more than in state and local governments and more than in the retail and manufacturing sectors – but much less than in the construction and services sectors.

The Take-Away

Excluding the pandemic years, job growth in the overall American economy over the last 15 years averaged about 170,000 per month. Federal government hiring averaged about 30,000 per month, making up about 18 percent of the new jobs created.

Over the last decade, growth in the federal workforce has outpaced growth in state and local governments as well as the retail and manufacturing sectors. However, federal job growth was considerably less than overall private sector job growth.

Employment is only one measure of the federal government’s size and overall economic and societal impact. The more important question is, what are these employees doing?  Our policy briefs (link) offer detailed analyses of government policies and actions.

‍

Measuring migration and crime

U.S. authorities do not track where migrants live. However, the Transactional Records Access Center (TRAC) at Syracuse University used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain over 9 million records of deportation proceedings over the last decade. The TRAC data identifies 415 U.S. counties with 1,000 or more migrants who faced or are facing deportation because they were denied asylum, overstayed visas, or entered the country illegally and came to the attention of local authorities.

We use the TRAC data to identify communities with high migrant populations (link). While the number of deportation cases does not tell exactly how many migrants live in a community (whether legally or illegally), it is a good indicator of migration’s impact and the general movement of migrants throughout the country.

Our data on crime rates comes from the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA), which annually reports the number of major crimes (homicide, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) for 63 high-population communities in the U.S. and Canada. Across these communities, the individuals from the TRAC data vary from .53% in Honolulu, Hawaii, to 12.9% in Miami, Florida.

The MCCA data only includes crimes that are reported to the police and does not include misdemeanor offenses. However, in comparison to FBI data (the other main source), it is available at the community level, which is what we are analyzing here.

What does the data show?

In most of the communities in the MCCA data, major crime rates dropped substantially between 2019 and 2023. The average decline is -44.2%. There is considerable variation: crime in Philadelphia saw the largest decline at 73.2%, while crime in Oklahoma City increased 54.4%. The question is, across the 63 communities, are higher migrant populations associated with changes in crime rates?

The figure below shows the relationship between a community’s deportation cases (measured as a percentage of total population) and the percentage decline in major crimes between 2019 and 2023.

The figure shows no distinct relationship between the size of a community’s deportation cases and the decline in crime – the dotted trend line is essentially flat.

In concrete terms, Milwaukee and Miami saw almost the same decline in crime (-42.9% for Milwaukee and -41.2% for Miami), even though Milwaukee has fewer deportation cases than Miami (1.2% vs 12.9%). Similarly, Oklahoma City and Philadelphia have similar deportation cases (3.6% vs. 2.2%), but major crimes increased over 50 percent in Oklahoma City and declined over 75 percent in Philadelphia.

This analysis is not the last word. It may be that crime rates in smaller communities are more sensitive to the size of the migrant population. The brief linked earlier identified communities where deportation cases are a relatively high percentage of total population. Another possibility is that migration is related to certain crimes such as auto theft or carjacking.  We will consider both topics in future briefs.

The Take-Away

In almost all of the large U.S. cities analyzed here, major crimes decreased substantially between 2019 and 2023.

The size of the migrant population in these cities varies tremendously.

In these communities, there is no relationship between the reduction in major crime and the size of the migrant population.

Future work should examine the impact of migrants on non-major crimes such as auto theft and other types of criminal offenses in smaller communities.

DEI in the workplace

DEI initiatives are intended to produce a more diverse workforce. The concern with DEI is that these efforts may have hidden costs. Achieving diversity goals may require hiring less qualified individuals, making organizations less able to achieve their substantive goals.  

Additionally, DEI initiatives are zero-sum. If an organization prioritizes hiring one class of individuals, it reduces the number of people hired from all other groups. Even if the new hires are as capable as the old ones, some people are still worse off. These people would have been hired pre-DEI but were rejected under new hiring criteria.

The FAA’s DEI Initiative

Background

Air traffic controllers direct private and commercial air traffic, both in the air and (at major airports) on the ground. Before 2014, most air traffic controllers were graduates of ATC-CTI, a program where college students are given preliminary training as part of their coursework. ATC-CTI graduates were given preferential treatment in the FAA’s hiring process.  

The DEI Initiative

Beginning in 2014, the FAA changed its hiring criteria to use an aptitude test and a biographical essay. ATC-CTI graduates could still apply, but their preferential treatment was ended. Succeeding years saw a reduction in the number of trainees who were ATC-CTI graduates. However, a similar percentage of ATC and non-ATC hires completed controller training.

Impact on Diversity

Research by Everything Policy finds that the FAA’s initiative was unsuccessful for at least one segment of our population - women. While the FAA does not release data specific to its air traffic controller demographics, we collected this information from various sources, including the Professional Women’s Controllers Association and a few other organizations listed in the citation. The percentage of female air traffic controllers has remained roughly constant at about 16-18% from the 1980s until now. (Data on minority air traffic controllers is unavailable.)

Measuring Air Safety

Everything Policy researchers analyzed the impact of the FAA’s DEI initiative by looking for trends in data on aviation mishaps attributed to controller error. We focus on two indicators: near-midair collisions by commercial aircraft and ground mishaps, such as when two aircraft are simultaneously directed to the same runway. In addition to describing different events, these data differ in number and quality: near-misses are less common, voluntarily reported, and not corroborated. In addition, the data includes all reported near-misses, not just those due to controller error.

The chart below shows the trend from 2010 to 2023 in the two variables per million flights (the near-miss data ends in 2020). The vertical dashed line at 2015 identifies the earliest point when controllers hired under the new rules ended their formal training and began working in air traffic facilities.

The data shows no sustained increase in the two types of accidents after the FAA’s DEI initiative began. Ground mishaps increased before 2015 but plateaued after that. The lower rates in 2020 and 2021 are possibly due to reduced air traffic due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Near-misses increased in 2016 and 2017 but declined after, so the rate in 2020 was almost the same as in 2014. It is possible that the spike in near-misses was due to increased drone operations near airports, which were limited by new FAA regulations implemented in early 2018.

Additional data on runway incursions that include privately-owned planes and airports not under FAA control indicates that overall incursion rates increased in Summer 2023. However, this change is unlikely to reflect the FAA’s DEI initiative, since the new hiring criteria had been in place for almost a decade.

The Take-Away

DEI initiatives are inherently complex and controversial. While aiming to improve representation, they can raise concerns about potential trade-offs in organizational performance and create perceived winners and losers.

Our analysis of the FAA’s 2014 DEI initiative indicates that it did not achieve one of its primary goals of increasing female representation among air traffic controllers. Furthermore, based on the available data, the initiative does not appear to have compromised air safety.

It is possible that the new aptitude tests and biographical essays effectively identified qualified candidates, mitigating any potential negative impacts of de-emphasizing the ATC-CTI pathway.  

However, a more comprehensive assessment using a wider range of safety metrics would be beneficial. The long-term impacts and any unintended consequences remain subjects for continued investigation.

‍

Finding Migrants

U.S. authorities do not track where migrants live. However, the Transactional Records Access Center (TRAC) at Syracuse University used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain over 9 million records of deportation proceedings over the last decade. The TRAC data identifies all counties in the U.S. with 1,000 or more migrants who faced or are facing deportation because they were denied asylum, overstayed visas, or entered the country illegally and came to the attention of local authorities.

While the number of deportation cases in a community does not tell exactly how many migrants or recent migrants live there, it is a good indicator of migration’s impact and general movement of migrants throughout the country. An initial look at the data suggests that recent migrants to the U.S. are extremely concentrated, as only 415 counties in the U.S. out of 3,244 total (12.8%) have migrant cases over 1,000.

Where Do Migrants Live?

The table below shows data on the 30 counties with the largest migrant caseloads over the last decade – in all, about half of 9 million individuals in the TRAC data. We combine adjacent counties in California, Florida, and New York. For each county or grouping of counties, the table identifies the total population and the percentage of the population that are in the TRAC data.

The data regarding migrant cases reveals several things about migration. First, it reveals the majority of the burden related to migration is placed on major urban areas. For example, in New York City, the number of migration cases is over six percent of the total population.

Our analysis also shows that a disproportionate percentage of migrants live in counties located in border states, particularly border counties such as Cameron and El Paso counties in Texas and the Dade-Broward area in Florida. The percentage of migrants is also notably high in a few non-border counties, such as Essex County (Newark), New Jersey and Pierce County (Tacoma), Washington.

Our second analysis identifies all other counties where the number of migration cases is more than 5% of the population. This group is broken into two groups: counties adjacent to one of the urban areas discussed previously and those not. The first table below has the adjacent counties.

Here again, the migration caseload in these counties is high as a percentage of the population, suggesting that in these areas, migration is a regional problem rather than being limited to a particular community.

Our final analysis identifies counties with high migration caseloads that are on their own – they are geographically separate from metro migration clusters. Informally, these are counties with surprisingly high migrant caseloads, as most are not border counties or even in border states, and are not near a metro migrant cluster.

What is especially notable are the low-population counties with high migrant caseloads, such as Hall County, Nebraska, with a population of just over sixty thousand and approaching six thousand migration cases. Counties like Hall have fewer resources than major urban areas to deal with a large migrant population, yet have proportionately similar caseloads.

The Take-Away

Most recent migrants live in larger cities or adjacent communities, such as the New York area or the Los Angeles - San Diego region.

Border states (Arizona, California, Florida, and Texas) and, in particular, border counties in these states, also have a disproportionate share of migrants.

There are also several isolated counties throughout the U.S. with a disproportionately high migrant population.

‍

What is Medicaid?

There are three broad categories of Medicaid recipients: poor adults and their children, disabled adults (including people who are institutionalized individuals and those needing kidney dialysis), and seniors requiring long-term care. The program is funded by the federal government (90%) and state governments (10%). States set income thresholds for Medicaid eligibility for different types of recipients. For example, in Alabama, a non-disabled adult must have an income below 13% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) ($15,060 in 2024), while in Wisconsin, the limit is 95% of the FPL.

The Affordable Care Act (enacted in 2014) allows states to expand Medicaid to enroll adults under 65 with income at or below 133% of the FPL. Participation in Medicaid Expansion is optional. Since 2014, 40 states have expanded Medicaid, enrolling about 24.6 million additional people as of March 2023, and 10 states have opted not to.

Medicaid recipients are U.S. citizens or permanent residents.  Some states provide some health care benefits to undocumented residents, and some of the undocumented population pay for private insurance.  But no federal funds are used to provide health care to the undocumented.  

What does Medicaid pay for?

Using data from the Kaiser Family Foundation from 2021 (the latest year with available data), our first figure shows the relative size of different groups of Medicare recipients.

By itself, the enrollment data suggests that Medicaid primarily pays for medical care for poor people. Including people enrolled through Medicaid Expansion, nearly 80 percent of Medicaid recipients are poor adults or their children.

A different and more accurate picture emerges if we examine the amount of money that the Medicaid program spends on each type of recipient, as shown below:

The cost data gives a very different picture: over 50% of Medicaid funds provide care to just over 20% of recipients – seniors and the disabled.

How Efficient is Medicaid?

One criticism of Medicaid is its per-recipient costs are significantly higher than private health insurance providers. However, most Medicaid funds pay for health care for seniors and the disabled, many of whom require a higher level of care, including full-time nursing home care. Assessing Medicaid’s costs relative to private insurers requires an apples-to-apples comparison.

The figure below offers a first-cut comparison. Using federal government data, we calculate Medicaid’s cost of providing healthcare to a healthy adult and for an average-sized family (two adults and three children). We compare these figures to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s estimate of the average cost of private health insurance for the same individual and family.

The comparison reveals that for healthy adults and families, the cost of care through Medicaid is slightly lower than private insurance.

The comparison we make here is limited. Private plans may offer a wider range of benefits. Medicaid recipients may not be as healthy as the average private insurance recipient. Moreover, Medicaid recipients may be less likely to make routine visits for medical care. All these factors complicate a straightforward comparison of per-capita costs. Even so, our initial analysis shows that per-recipient Medicaid costs are not wildly different from those in the private sector.

The Take-Away

Many Americans think that Medicaid provides healthcare to poor people. However, more than half of its budget pays for long-term care for seniors and disabled adults.

Our comparison of Medicaid with private insurers suggests that the high cost of Medicaid is partially due to the large number of beneficiaries and the kinds of care they require rather than bureaucratic inefficiencies.

The Medicaid program illustrates the lack of an easy solution to high healthcare costs.  On the one hand, it is not inevitable that the government pays for nursing home care, dialysis, or even healthcare for the poor. On the other hand, without Medicaid, some current recipients would have no way to access these services. Americans face tough decisions about what standard of care they are willing to provide to the old, the poor, and the disabled and how these programs will be paid for.

Who runs elections?

Each state sets its standards for election procedures but then delegates the actual counting of votes to the local level. Elections are managed by a small number of local government workers and many citizen-volunteers. As we discuss in other briefs, state and local governments also differ in their procedures for early voting and absentee voting and their requirements for voter identification at polling places.  

Preventing Election Fraud

The decentralized nature of American elections is intended to deter election fraud. For local offices, attempts to stuff ballot boxes, remove ballots, or report false totals would require the cooperation of multiple individuals, including in some cases, both election officials and citizen-volunteers. Committing vote fraud (even one vote) is a serious felony. For state and national offices, significant fraud would likely involve many people. Thus, it would be difficult to commit vote fraud without numerous people who are willing to go along without raising an alarm.  

Another reason election fraud is difficult is the emphasis on transparency and bipartisanship. At local polling stations, all actions (from checking in voters to counting ballots at the end of the day) require the participation of poll workers from both the Democrat and Republican parties. Voting machines are also disconnected from the Internet to help prevent them from being hacked. Representatives of local political parties are also given access to polling facilities to monitor election-related processes. With this said, it’s up to government employees and citizen-volunteers to ensure these procedures are followed.

During every election season, there are reports of problems with the electoral process, such as jurisdictions that initially report more votes than there are registered voters in the community. These reports can be seen as a sign that the various review processes are working as intended: discrepancies are discovered, disclosed, and corrected.  

As noted in the briefs mentioned earlier, although organizations investigating vote fraud in America have identified and pursued specific cases, there has not been documented wide-scale fraud. Many alleged concerns wind up relating to state laws versus actual fraud. For example, many states allow mail-in ballots to be accepted after Election Day as long as they are postmarked before Election Day. Some people argue that counting these ballots constitutes fraud. However, as long as officials follow their state’s rules about deadlines, these ballots are valid.

Voting Technologies Across States

One significant difference between states lies in their choice of voting machines. In general, there are three types of voting systems in use across America:

• Electronic voting machines (touch screens) that generate a paper receipt for the voter
• Electronic voting machines that do not generate a paper receipt
• Paper ballots that are scanned electronically

Of these systems, some election experts argue in favor of paper ballots and scanners, as this system allows a more thorough end-to-end audit of the vote-counting process, including a hand-count of ballots if necessary. In contrast, some touch-screen systems do not produce paper records of each vote. And even if a touch-screen system produces a receipt, it is taken by the voter, so election officials must rely on machine records for vote counting and validation.

To investigate variation in the use of different voting technologies, researchers from Everything Policy divided states into their dominant political coalition–Republican, Democrat, or swing state. We divided states into three groups: those that use paper ballots, those that use touch screens, and those that use some combination of these technologies.  

The table shows that about two-thirds of Democrat-controlled states and all swing states use paper ballots, while only about forty percent of Republican-controlled states rely on the same method. Another fifty percent of Republican states use a combination of methods, compared to only twenty-five percent of Democrat states. Only three states (Delaware, Louisiana, and Mississippi) use touch screens state-wide.  

Some experts believe all states will eventually transition back to paper ballot systems, replacing touchscreen voting machines as they wear out. The federal government provides subsidies to defray the cost of these transitions.  

The Take-Away

Voting procedures are designed to be bipartisan, transparent, and auditable. However, the lack of paper ballots in some states limits traditional paper-trail audit results.

Although certain instances of ballot harvesting and election interference (dissemination of mis-information or the suppression of factual information) may likely impact voter turnout and who casts their vote for which candidate, there is little evidence of significant vote fraud in American elections.

Although universal adoption of paper ballot voting systems might allow for more thorough end-to-end audits of the vote-counting process, technology continues to weave its way into all aspects of society.

Some experts believe all states will eventually transition back to paper ballot systems, replacing touchscreen voting machines as they wear out. The federal government provides subsidies to defray the cost of these transitions.  

‍

How do state voter ID laws differ?

As of October 2024, 36 states have some form of voter ID laws. The color gradation in the map below shows the states with the strictest laws in dark gray (photo or non-photo) and those with the most lenient laws in light gray (no ID required.) Those in the middle have procedures such as affidavits that allow citizens to vote without an ID (mid gray.)

The primary argument for voter identification laws is that they help protect against voter fraud, such as individuals voting in precincts where they no longer reside, voting multiple times in one election, or voting on behalf of another individual, deceased or otherwise.  

There is a significant partisan asymmetry in voter ID laws. As shown below, Republican-controlled states are more likely to have stronger voter ID laws compared to Democrat-controlled and swing states.  

Do states without voter ID laws have higher documented voter fraud in U.S. elections?

Documented legal cases of voter fraud are very rare. For example, according to the Heritage Foundation Voter Fraud tracker, in the 2020 presidential election there were approximately 155 million votes cast and 17 criminal convictions, for a fraud rate of about one case per ten million votes.

Given the low rate of documented voter fraud, it is virtually impossible to determine the actual impact of voter ID laws on fraud rates because there hasn’t been enough data collected. The cases of voter fraud identified by the Heritage Foundation are scattered across the country, in both states with no ID laws and states with the strictest ID laws.

Even if voter ID laws do not reduce voter fraud, it is possible that their widespread implementation might increase public confidence in election integrity. Here are some activities in American daily life that typically require a valid photo ID: buying alcohol or tobacco; opening a bank account; applying for food stamps, welfare, Medicaid and Social Security; renting and buying a house or car; flying on an airplane; getting married; purchasing a firearm; adopting a pet; applying for a hunting or fishing license; renting a hotel room; securing mobile phone service through a major carrier; visiting a casino; donating blood; and applying for unemployment benefits.

What are the arguments against voter ID laws?

The principal argument against voter ID laws is that they place a disproportionate burden on historically disadvantaged groups, such as people with low incomes, the young, or minorities, as these citizens are less likely to have valid photo ID. Although studies on the percentage of eligible voters who have reasonable access to acquiring a valid photo ID is limited, a 2023 study by political scientists Michael Hamner and Samuel Novel used Census and survey data to calculate the percentage of non-ID holders in different demographic groups, as shown in the figure below:

The data shows that virtually all whites and people over 30 have a photo ID. However, about 6 percent of Blacks and Hispanics do not have a photo ID. The rate is significantly higher for young people (about 15%) and people with low incomes (over 30%.)

Do voter ID laws depress turnout?

The results are mixed. Some studies have found that ID laws have little impact on voter turnout, even among minority voters. Other studies find that in states with strict voter identification laws, Blacks, Latinos, and Democrats were less likely to vote than White and Republican voters. In addition to people of color, Voter ID laws tend to have a greater impact on marginalized populations, including Native American communities, low-income, and, in certain circumstances, the elderly and rural voters, regardless of race or ethnicity.

The Take-Away

• About two-thirds of American states have some form of voter ID laws, with Republican-controlled states more likely to have such laws compared to swing states or Democrat-controlled states.

• There is little evidence that voter ID laws reduce voter fraud as there aren’t many court cases regarding the subject, and such cases usually involve only a few individuals. However, voter ID laws may increase citizens’ confidence in electoral integrity.

• At present, voter ID laws may increase barriers to voting for people of low income, young Americans, and Blacks and Hispanics. However, it is unclear whether voter ID laws reduce turnout from these groups or in general.

‍

How many mail-in votes are there in U.S. elections?

The percentage of Americans casting mail-in votes has increased in recent years. In 2020, during the middle of the COVID pandemic, 43% of voters cast a mail ballot. Even after social distancing restrictions were lifted, 31.9% of voters voted by mail in the 2022 general election, lower than the 2020 rate but higher than the 25.6% of mail-in voters in 2018. As of 2024, eight states (California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Washington) conduct elections entirely by mail.

How do states regulate vote by mail?

State policies concerning voting by mail vary along four dimensions:

• Whether a state allows early voting
• Whether voting by mail (absentee) requires an excuse or is available to everyone
• Whether ballots must be mailed back or can be put in a drop box
• Whether voters must return their ballot or someone else can do it.

Analysis by Everything Policy shown below divides states into three groups (Democrat-controled, Swing, and Republican-controlled) and, using data from the National Council of State Legislators, shows the percentage of each group with strict regulations in each area.

The data shows that only a few states do not have early voting (Alabama, Mississippi, and New Hampshire). Further, while only a few Democrat-controlled and Swing states limit absentee voting, a near-majority of Republican states do so. Republican states are also much more likely to ban drop boxes and require voters to return their own ballots, either by mail or in a drop box if allowed. Additional analysis reveals that most of the Republican states with these limits in place are in the southeast United States.

What are the pros and cons of voting by mail and absentee voting?

Advocates of voting by mail and absentee voting argue that the method has three main advantages: increasing turnout, reducing costs to voters and local governments, and increasing informed voting. Several studies show that voting by mail has little impact on turnout. However, it can reduce costs insofar as local governments reduce the number of voting sites open on Election Day.

Some evidence suggests that vote-by-mail increases informed voting because voters are more likely to research individual races or candidates while filling in their ballots. Voting by mail also makes voting easier for some citizens, especially for the elderly and those with mobility constraints, as they do not have to visit a polling station on Election Day.

Opponents of mail-in voting argue that voting from home via mail-in ballot may increase the chances that a voter unintentionally omits required information or incorrectly fills out the form, leading to an increased rate of rejected mailed ballots.

Another concern is the practice of ballot harvesting, where an organization distributes large numbers of mail-in ballots to citizens, then returns to collect the completed ballots and submit them on the voters’ behalf, in some cases attempting to sway the voter in a particular direction. Some states ban this practice entirely, while others restrict the number of harvested ballots. However, in many states, there are no restrictions on ballot harvesting.

Other critics of mail-in voting argue that it permits voter fraud, as someone could fill out another person's ballot in an attempt to vote more than once. However, as we discuss here, there is limited evidence that voter fraud occurs in more than a few cases.

The Take-Away

• Over the last decade, the number of states allowing early voting, Vote-by-Mail, and no-excuse absentee voting has increased significantly. Current estimates are that the percentage of mail-in votes in 2024 will approach the 2020 pandemic levels.
• Thus far, this change in how Americans vote has occurred without any documented signs of increased voter fraud.
• Compared to Democrat-controlled and Swing states, Republican states (especially in the South) are more likely to limit mail-in voting.

What is a voter purge?

Under the federal National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), states are required to remove a voter from its rolls if the person has died, moved, or has not voted in two consecutive federal elections, and fails to respond to mailings asking for confirmation that they wish to remain registered. Additionally, states can remove people from their rolls if the person is determined to not be a citizen, and some states also remove convicted felons and people deemed mentally incompetent.

States differ in how frequently or aggressively they engage in voter roll purges. In New Hampshire, for example, removal based on inactivity occurs every ten years, while many states conduct purges every two years. According to the most recent survey by the United States Election Assistance Commission, an independent, bipartisan commission whose mission is to help election officials improve the administration of elections and help Americans participate in the voting process, 19,270,301 voters were purged from voter rolls of 48 states and DC between elections in 2020 and 2022.

Who enforces voter purges?

In 38 states, the Secretary of State directs voter purges, though it is often up to local county or municipal election officials to actually carry out list maintenance. In the remaining 12 states, election roll integrity is the responsibility of a board or independent commission.

Federal courts are frequently invoked to ensure compliance with the NVRA’s terms, both for and against purges. In New York City, for example, the right-leaning Judicial Watch sued the city in 2022 for a failure to purge voter rolls, noting that only 22 people had been removed over the previous 6 years for inactivity in voting in federal elections. As part of the settlement, New York City agreed to remove 441,083 ineligible names out of approximately 5.5 million voters and promised to take reasonable steps going forward to clean its voter rolls. In October 2024, the Alabama Secretary of State was sued by the left-leaning Campaign Legal Center to stop an ongoing purge of its voter rolls within 90 days of the Presidential election, which is prohibited by the NVRA. A federal judge halted the purge of voter rolls, restoring active registration status for thousands of American-born and naturalized citizens, which would have otherwise made them not eligible to vote.

Are there partisan differences in purges?

In order to determine the proportion of purged voters to the total eligible voter population in each state, Everything Policy collected data on each state’s Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) and compared the total number of voters removed from voter rolls to its CVAP, as shown in the figure below. States are divided based on the partisanship of their Secretary of State (Republican or Democrat). States where the process is directed by an independent commission are labeled as Non-partisan. Each bar shows the average percentage purged for the states in the three groups.

There is no sign of partisan differences – the averages for the three groups are nearly the same.

Next, because voters are purged for various reasons, we look at the percentage purged for reasons other than “death” or “ moved” – in other words, all discretionary reasons for removal from failure to respond to a mailer asking to confirm registration status to felony conviction. The chart below shows the percentage of voters removed for these ‘other’ reasons compared to the total number purged across the three groups

Here again, there are no signs of significant partisan differences.

The Take-Away

Voter purges are a regular part of maintaining voter registration lists and are required by federal law.

While purge procedures differ across states, there is no sign of significant partisan differences in either the percentage of voters purged or the percentage of voters purged for reasons other than death or moving out of state.

There are also no significant differences between purge procedures administered by Secretaries of State elected as partisans compared to nonpartisan commissions.

When will we know who won the 2024 Presidential election?  The moment polls close is not the end of the process.  In some swing states, absentee ballots are accepted up to a week after the election.  In states that require photo ID, people lacking one can cast a provisional ballot, then have several days to confirm their identity.  In a close election, these votes may be enough to change the outcome.  Notably, because election officials in Pennsylvania cannot process any absentee ballots until Election Day, results there may change significantly as these votes are counted over several days’ time.

‍

How is hurricane severity measured?

The Saffir-Simpson Scale measures hurricane severity. It divides hurricanes into five groups, from 1 (winds 74-95 miles per hour, with damage expected to roofs, tree limbs, and power lines) to 5 (130 - 156 MPH, widespread catastrophic damage expected). A major hurricane is category 3 (111-129 MPH) or higher.

In 2024, Hurricane Helene came ashore as a category 4 storm. Hurricane Milton reached category 5 over the Gulf of Mexico, weakening to category 3 over the Florida coast.

Another way to measure storm severity is to calculate the dollar value of damage. By this measure, storms today are much more severe than a generation ago – but this conclusion reflects that coastal regions have become much more developed, so more buildings and infrastructure are being damaged.

Why might global warming produce more severe hurricanes?

The central argument for a link between climate change and hurricane severity is that hurricanes form over oceans and strengthen given large temperature differences between ocean water and the upper atmosphere. One observed consequence of global warming is that oceans are warming, increasing these temperature disparities.

For example, one study published in 2013 stated, “We conclude that since 1975 there has been a substantial and observable regional and global increase in the proportion of Category 4-5 hurricanes of 25-30 percent per °C of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming.”

The best-available information (including the study quoted here) is that climate change has not affected the number of hurricanes each year.

What is the trend in major hurricanes over time?

There are two primary aspects to consider with the study quoted here. One is that the study looks at a relatively short time span, from the 1970s to the early 2010s. Hurricane experts have identified the 1960s to the 1980s as a time when there was an abnormally low number of hurricanes. A potentially more accurate analysis of whether global warming has affected hurricane severity should likely use a longer time span.

Moving to longer time spans raises a new problem: before 1980, some major storms were unrecorded because they did not make landfall or because coastal regions were largely uninhabited. Now, weather satellites provide global coverage. One potential solution to address this limitation is to adjust historical data by adding storms recorded in ship’s logs and other sources. Our analysis references updated data compiled by scholars at Princeton University and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency.

The chart below shows the adjusted number of major Atlantic Ocean hurricanes from 1930 to the present. Each point shows the number of major hurricanes for a given year.  There are two trend lines, one for the longer time and the other for 1975 - 2020 (the period cited in the earlier quote).

Examining data over the longer period (during which global temperatures have increased), there is little to no sign of any material increase in the number of major hurricanes. The red trend line does, however, show a significant increase over a shorter time, but this relationship goes away if we look at it over a longer time.

In addition, there have only been four category 5 storms since 1960: Camille in 1969, Andrew in 1992, Michael in 2019, and Milton in 2024.  At present, there is no sign of an increase.

The Take-Away

That news coverage of hurricanes links global warming to hurricane severity is not surprising: hurricanes strengthen as they move through areas of warm ocean water, and ocean temperatures are increasing.

The most comprehensive data available on record reflecting the number of major hurricanes over time does not show any material increase, even though global temperatures have risen over the same time.

The perception that hurricanes today are more dangerous than a generation ago may reflect increased populations and development in America’s coastal communities.

‍

What is polling?

Polls measure public opinion by interviewing a random sample of a community. The value of polling is that if samples are truly random and people respond truthfully, the responses from small samples are likely to be within a few percentage points of the broader population values.  

For example, suppose a poll of 1000 people in a state reports 47% support for a candidate. This result indicates that the actual support is likely to be between 44% and 50% (formally, the probability is .95 that actual support is in this range). If the sample size was increased to 5000, the range would narrow to 45.5% - 48.5% as the larger sample is a more accurate representation of the population.

Why do polls disagree?

Some polls are subject to partisan bias – those conducted by candidates, parties, or ideological organizations.  Most sources that collect poll data record whether a poll is partisan or not and discount the results when they build polling averages.  

However, even among reputable polling organizations, polls can yield different results because they use different random samples. One poll might reveal 47% support for a candidate, while a similarly-sized poll taken at the same time might reveal 45% support just because the polls interviewed different people.

Disagreements also stem from how polls are conducted. Pollsters use different methods to determine likely voters. Questionnaires are often phrased slightly differently. Some pollsters only ask about major party candidates, while others include third-party candidates and independents. Some pollsters force respondents to express a preference, while others allow an undecided option.

Americans are also increasinly reluctant to be polled. Of every 100 people contacted by a pollster, around five agree to participate. The solution is to weigh the opinions of some respondents more than others to make the sample resemble the population, but pollsters have different strategies for implementing this solution.

How should Americans interpret polls?

Most scholars and political professionals argue that we should focus on polling averages rather than individual polls. So, if one poll reports 47% support for a candidate, a second reports 46%, and a third reports 42%, these results are combined into an average. This average gives us a better picture of what’s happening in a political contest because it is based on a much larger sample and controls for differences in poll administration.

Each aggregator has their own strategy for combining polls.  For example, Real Clear Politics averages all available poll results for each contest, while 538 weights individual polls based on factors including the sample size and the pollster’s accuracy in past elections. 538 also excludes some pollsters who do not release enough details about their polling methods.  

Which polling averages are best?

To compare polling aggregators, Everything Policy selected three sites with a track record across multiple elections and compared their predictions for close Senate elections in 2018, 2020, and 2022. These contests are a good test of the aggregators, as the outcomes of most of these elections were uncertain even in the final days of the campaigns. (We look at Senate elections because there has not been enough presidential elections with good polling data to analyze predictions made about these contests.)

We asked two questions: did each aggregator’s polling average correctly predict the election outcome, and how far off was their final prediction about the vote received by the winning candidate? The chart below shows the results of this comparison.

Two results stand out. Despite their different approaches, the three aggregators have roughly the same accuracy, regardless of whether we compare their predictions about the outcome or the winning candidate’s vote share.  This result reflects the fact that the aggregators are all working with the same set of publicly available polls.  While each aggregator uses a slightly different averaging technique, there is no sign that these differences translate into an advantage for one over the others.  

Second, the results highlight the difficulty of predicting election outcomes.  By combining polls, the aggregators have very large samples to develop predictions.  Yet their final vote share estimates are on average several points away from the actual results.  This difficulty reflects a drawback with polling itself: it is difficult to get people to respond truthfully to questions about which candidate they support, whether that support will change, or whether they are likely to vote.  No known aggregation strategy can address these limitations.

The Take-Away

Measuring public opinion is not easy. There are many reasons why individual polls produce different findings about public opinion – reasons that have nothing to do with partisan bias by pollsters.

The best way to interpret political polls is to focus on polling averages rather than individual polls.

Of the three polling aggregators examined here, none stand out for generating more accurate predictions than the others.

The Current State of Immigration Court Cases

The dramatic increase in unresolved immigration cases is illustrated by the charts below. The first chart shows the underlying cause, an increase in the number of migrants attempting to enter the U.S. (Data for 2024 is annualized based on trend analysis.).

The rise in border encounters after 2020 is matched by a rise in pending deportation cases, as shown below:

Where Does The Backlog Come From?

Since 9/11, immigration enforcement has been the job of the Department of Homeland Security. In the wake of the terrorist attacks, immigration regulation and enforcement were hardened in line with anti-terrorism aims. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft summed up the new approach in a speech to U.S. Mayors in October 2001: “Let the terrorists among us be warned: If you overstay your visa - even by one day - we will arrest you. If you violate a local law, you will be put in jail and kept in custody as long as possible. We will use every available statute. We will seek every prosecutorial advantage. We will use all our weapons within the law and under the Constitution to protect life and enhance security for America.”

With this change, undocumented immigration, which used to be largely dealt with through administrative proceedings, became a criminal matter. Undocumented immigrants are now charged with felonies, like unauthorized entry, and processed through immigration courts run by the Department of Justice.

Federal immigration prosecutions now represent a substantial percentage of federal court cases. Of 7,142 federal court convictions nationwide in July 2024, 2,703 (37.3%) were for immigration violations. The problem is much bigger in areas with high undocumented populations. Of 1,014 federal court convictions in Arizona in July 2024, 902 (89.0%) were for immigration violations.

The resources devoted to immigration cases have not kept pace with demand. In 2020, there were about 550 immigration judges. At the end of 2023, the number had grown to 750 – a 36% increase, but far short of the massive spike in pending cases shown in the earlier figure.

This lack of resources generates a backlog in two ways. First, when an undocumented individual is detained, they can plead guilty and be deported, or ask for a full trial in the hope that a judge will allow them to stay. Waiting for a trial requires them to stay in custody for months or years, but given the conditions that motivate people to leave their country (see our brief), detention is often preferable to being sent back home.

At the same time, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency only has a limited capacity to house detainees. As a result, migrants claiming asylum are released to relatives or social services agencies and given a future hearing date. If these individuals fail to appear, a deportation case is filed. However, ICE does not have the resources to pursue these individuals. The primary way these cases resurface and are resolved is if these individuals are arrested by local police, who determine their immigration status and turn them over to ICE.

The Takeaway

The backlog of immigration cases in federal courts is the result of a significant increase in Southwestern border encounters and policy changes that criminalize undocumented immigration without adding sufficient resources (federal judges and detention facilities) to accommodate the changes.

Addressing this backlog will require either hundreds of new federal judges, much larger detention facilities, or a dramatic reduction in both undocumented entry and asylum claims.

Proposals for mass deportations of the undocumented ignore the fact that under current law, these individuals can delay their departure by asking for a full criminal trial. Significant deportations would likely require months or even years.

‍

Where are southern border migrants coming from?

The figure below shows the top 10 countries of origin for southern border entries from 2014 to 2024 (the 2024 data is annualized based on January - May entries). It is based on official Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reports of entries at official border crossings and arrests of people crossing the border elsewhere.

The Advance Travel Authorization (ATA) countries are Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, whose citizens are eligible for ATA, which allows them to enter the U.S. automatically and work while their asylum claims are decided. “Other CSA” refers to other countries in Central and South America.

The figure shows the dramatic increase in migration to the U.S. over the last decade. Pre-pandemic, the majority of entrants were from Mexico. Now, migrants are coming from a much wider range of countries, both the ATA countries and other places such as Columbia (330 entrants in 2014 vs. 219,120 in 2024).

Why are migrants coming to the US?

Research shows that migration is often the result of quality-of-life issues, most notably poor economic conditions. The figure below illustrates this point using DHS migration data from Central and South American countries. The data point for each country shows its GDP per capita (2023 data) on the x-axis – this variable measures the strength of a country’s economy and the quality of life that its citizens can expect. The y-axis shows the percentage of the country’s population that entered the U.S. through America’s southern border in 2023.

The chart highlights the countries with a high percentage of migrants, including Honduras, Nicaragua, Cuba, Guatemala, Venezuela, and El Salvador. The chart shows why migrants are more likely to come from these countries than others. These eight countries are all relatively poor, with a GDP per capita of less than $10 thousand. (In contrast, the U.S. GDP per capita is over $80 thousand.) On the other hand, countries with stronger economies, such as Argentina, with a GDP of more than $20 thousand per capita, have virtually no migration to the U.S.

Other reasons for migration include fears of crime and living under an authoritarian political regime. For example, Honduras, which of the nations examined here had the highest rate of migration to the U.S. in 2023, also had one of the highest murder rates in the world – 38.3 per 1000 compared to 6.8 per 1000 in the U.S. The same is true for Mexico. High migration rates from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, in part, are driven by repressive governments that imprison citizens (all are rated as “Not Free” by Freedom House, a respected NGO that evaluates political freedoms in countries throughout the world).

The Take-Away

The U.S. faces an ongoing problem: many Central and South American people want to immigrate to America. Our recent analysis shows that new policies are reducing the number of migrants, at least for now.

This brief expands on the earlier analysis to show how quality-of-life issues drive migration decisions. Migrants are not just coming from Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela. Rather, migration is happening throughout Central and South America from countries with weak economies, high crime rates, and repressive political regimes.

It is an open question whether the U.S. should assist countries in Central and South America with improving the quality of life of their citizens. Our findings raise the issue that if improvements do not happen, would-be migrants may find new ways to evade restrictions on the southern border, leading to increased entries and a continued border crisis.

What is the Trend for the National Debt?

When the federal budget is higher than tax revenue received in a given year, the federal government has a budget deficit and the Treasury Department issues bonds to make up the difference. Investors—people, other governments, and financial companies—buy these bonds because they offer a fixed and guaranteed interest rate (typically in the 2-5% range). These bonds cover the difference in spending vs. tax revenue, but lead to an increase in the national debt, which is the sum of every year’s deficit plus the interest owed on the money borrowed.

The standard way to measure the size of the national debt is as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the amount of goods and services produced by the U.S. economy. After an increase during World War II, the national debt was about 40% of GDP until about 1980. Since then, however, the debt has steadily increased, exceeding 100% of GDP in recent years, as shown in the figure below.

The 100% debt to GDP level is seen by some economists as the point where the national debt should begin to have significant negative effects. However, despite the national debt being over this level since 2010 or so, these effects have not been observed. Except for a brief spike in inflation and interest rates caused by supply chain disruptions during the COVID pandemic (see our Inflation brief for details), Americans have generally enjoyed low unemployment, moderate economic growth, and a rising stock market.

Moreover, as the figure below shows, the increasing debt has not affected the distribution of federal spending. The figure aggregates spending into four categories: entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.), defense, interest payments on the debt, and everything else. For details on each type of spending, see our policy briefs on federal spending.

The figure shows that the percentages of GDP spent on each category are roughly the same over time. There are two exceptions: (1) a spike in spending on non-defense, non-entitlement programs in 2020-21 due to COVID assistance programs and (2) a slight increase in interest payments beginning in 2021, due to the higher interest rates on government bonds used to finance the deficit.

Why The Debt Matters

The stability in federal spending levels is about to change. The chart below shows the predicted change in actual spending in 2023 versus projected spending for 2029 – five years from now.

Over the next five years, interest payments will increase almost 30 percent due to the increased size of the national debt and the higher expected interest rates that will be paid on government bonds. The chart shows how this increase will affect spending on other non-interest payment categories if no significant changes are made to policies regarding taxing and spending. The likely outcome - Defense spending will increase by only 1 percent. Entitlement spending will decline by almost 10 percent. And spending on all other government programs will decrease by over 30 percent.

The Take-Away

While the increasing national debt has not yet damaged the American economy, it is about to have a serious impact on federal spending. As debt payments increase, spending on all other programs will be crowded out. With the exception of defense spending, every other federal program will see spending cuts, in most cases at a severe level.

Cutting the national debt will require painful choices to raise taxes and / or cut spending, requiring a debate over what the government should and should not do. Our brief shows that if these choices are not made, increasing debt payments will constrain virtually every non-defense federal program, without regard to the priorities held by the American public.

What are the new policies?

The measures implemented in recent months include the following:

• Increased border patrols to reduce unauthorized entries
• Increased border agents at ports of entry to reduce processing times
• People who try to enter the U.S. illegally cannot make a subsequent asylum claim
• Individuals who were found to be threats to public safety or national security are subject to expedited deportation
• Changes to the asylum process to reduce processing time
• Informal agreements with the Mexican government to reduce the flow of people entering the U.S.

These changes are designed to reduce legal and illegal border entries by (a) reducing the flow of people traveling from Mexico to the U.S. border, (b) increasing the chances that people trying to cross the border illegally will be apprehended, and (c) reducing the number of people living in the U.S. while their asylum claims are being decided.

How can we assess the effectiveness of the new border policies?

None of these changes are guaranteed to be successful. Border-crossers may be able to evade increased patrols. The Mexican government may promise change but do little or nothing. Adding personnel to evaluate asylum claims may not have the desired outcome in reducing processing times if other changes aren’t made to increase efficiency in reviewing claims.  

In addition, many changes may take time to be effective. At present, there are over two million pending asylum claims, with only about ten thousand being decided per month. Even if the monthly processing rate is doubled or tripled, there will still be millions of pending claims a year from now. Moreover, since the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) only releases asylum data annually, it will take until 2026 before we can fully assess the effectiveness of the 2024-era policy changes.  

One variable that allows a near-term assessment is monthly data on border encounters. An encounter occurs when a Border Patrol agent spots an individual trying to cross the border between ports of entry (whether or not the individual is eventually apprehended). Encounter data captures in-person efforts, but also identifications made by fixed video cameras, drones, and other surveillance technologies.  

In principle, increased patrols, penalties for illegal entry, faster processing of asylum claims, and Mexico’s efforts to reduce migrants crossing into the U.S. are designed to reduce the number of unauthorized border crossings – both by reducing the supply of would-be entrants and by increasing the costs (risk) of trying to enter the U.S. illegally. If these policies work, we should see a reduction in monthly encounters.

What is the trend in encounters on the southern border?

The figure below compares monthly 2024 encounters released by DHS with data from 2022 and 2023. 2024 data is the black solid line, while the average monthly encounters for 2022 and 2023 is a dashed line.  

Comparing the 2024 data with the earlier years reveals two things. First, border encounters in July 2024 are down by almost 50 percent compared to January 2024. Moreover, July 2024 encounters are also down almost 50 percent compared to the same months in 2022 and 2023.

The Take-Away

The data provides two insights into the effectiveness of the federal government’s recent border policy changes. Border encounters for July 2024 are at their lowest levels since 2022, and are significantly lower compared to 2022 and 2023.  

The critical questions are whether the decline in border encounters continues in the coming months and whether data on asylum claims will reflect an increased number of claims being adjudicated. The data does reflect a decline in Southwestern border encounters, but given the cyclical nature of border crossings, it will take further analysis throughout the remainder of 2024 to determine if the new policies are reducing asylum claims and illegal entries on a sustained basis.

How much charging infrastructure exists at present?

The U.S. Department of Energy’s most recent report on EV infrastructure determined that for an EV driver to be no more than three miles from a fast-charging station in any city or town, there would need to be a charger density of 56 stations per 1,000 square miles. This number is significantly lower than the density of gas stations, which have an average density of about 960 stations per 1,000 square miles.  The chart below shows the density of charging stations by state, with the EPA recommendation as a dashed line.

‍

The data shows that only two states, Massachusetts and Connecticut, have charging station densities above the EPA recommendation.  Many large, low-population Western states, such as Wyoming or Montana, have relatively few charging stations.  Moreover, even some high-population states, such as Texas and Illinois, are well below the EPA requirement.  

While this data does not assess population density, geographic conditions (e.g. seasonal temperatures where batteries perform better or worse), the exact specifics of these charging stations themselves (accessibility, parking allotment, etc.), or whether charging stations are located in the right places to satisfy the EPA’s 3-mile requirement, they provide a first look at the number of new stations needed to satisfy the U.S. Department of Energy’s guidelines.  

How many new charging stations are needed?

Based on analysis by Everything Policy’s research team, the chart below shows the number of new charging stations needed in each state to satisfy the EPA’s 3-mile guidelines.  Overall, this goal requires the addition of over 160,000 charging stations.

Similar to the previous chart, the number of new stations is especially high in large, low-populated western states such as Montana.  However, even California, which has one of the highest station densities, needs over 5000 new stations. And Texas, which is both large in terms of square miles and has a high population, needs over 10,000 new stations to meet EPA requirements.  At the other end, many Northeastern states, such as Rhode Island or New Jersey, need relatively few new stations to join Massachusetts and Connecticut in having a dense network of EV charging stations.

The Take-Away

Few analyses of EVs as the primary mode of personal transportation have considered the infrastructure needed to make this transition work.  Our analysis shows that over 160,000 new charging stations are needed to meet the EPA’s 3-mile guideline.  Based on Department of Energy estimates, a new 10-port charging station may cost nearly $400,000, including hardware, land costs, and construction.  If so, the cost of a national network is nearly 80 billion dollars – much more than the 5 billion dollars currently allocated by the federal government for new charging stations.  Moreover, building this network may require the use of eminent domain (see our Brief on Eminent Domain in Further Reading) to construct the number of EV charging stations required in the optimal locations.

‍

What is the documented rate of police misconduct?

Police misconduct is difficult to document. Departments are not generally required to disclose the number of complaints filed against officers, so the data must be obtained from cooperative departments or through public records requests.

For this brief, Policy vs Politics analysts used the following sources:

• Data collected by the Invisible Institute’s Civilian Police Data Project for misconduct cases in the Chicago Police Force during 1988 – 2018
• Data collected by the New York City Civil Liberties Union for misconduct cases in the New York City Police Department during 2000 – 2021
• Data collected by the Invisible Institute and local USA Today reporters for 700 police departments (out of 1800 total) in 44 states covering misconduct cases during 2010- 2019

These sources include information on misconduct complaints, the percentage of complaints substantiated, and the punishments given to offending officers. Policy vs Politics analysts used data in the reports to calculate the total number of officers serving in these departments during the periods.

The chart below shows the percentage of officers with one or more complaints filed against them (solid bar) and the percentage with at least one substantiated complaint (striped bar). (The latter percentage could not be calculated from the 44-state study.)

Interestingly, the three sources agree that over a decade, about a quarter of police officers will be accused of misconduct. However, based on data from the urban departments, only a fraction (about eight percent, or a third of those accused) of these officers will be found to have committed misconduct.

The other way to inept this chart is that during the time frame analyzed here, nearly ninety-two percent of America’s police officers were   accused of misconduct or were exonerated after an investigation. This conclusion is consistent with another finding raised by all three organizations: a relatively small percentage of officers (about 5%) account for most complaints.

The next figure details the percentage of officers whose misconduct is serious enough to warrant significant punishment. For the 44-state study, it is the percentage of officers fired from the force. For New York City, it is the percentage fired or given serious sanctions such as suspensions of greater than a week or loss of more than a week’s vacation days. For Chicago, it is the percentage of officers fired plus the percentage of officers who resigned rather than accept their sanction, presumably a multi-day suspension or firing.

These data refine our understanding of police misconduct. While about eight percent of officers are found to have committed misconduct, the percentage whose behavior was serious enough to warrant a major punishment is around three to five percent. In other words, if Americans are concerned about reducing police misconduct, it is important to see that the problem is limited to a small percentage of  officers. The challenge is identifying these officers before they commit serious offenses and determining what type and level of training, professional development, and other assessments can be done to mitigate any potential negative impact to the community.

What kinds of police misconduct occur?

The 44-state study contains detailed information on the nature of offenses committed by police officers, as shown in the figure below.

Use of force involves threats or violence against suspects, detainees, and civilians. Substance abuse is the use of illegal drugs or excessive alcohol consumption. Perjury involves lying to superiors or in court. Theft is taking official property or evidence. The final category covers all other offenses.

Use of force complaints against the police only accounts for about a third of misconduct cases. Out of the rest, the most common offense is substance abuse. Perjury accounts for just over ten percent of police misconduct cases, as does theft.

The Take-Away

In recent years, there have been many well-publicized cases of clear police misconduct involving the injury or death of detainees or the unwarranted use of force against individuals suspected of committing relatively minor crimes. One interpretation of these incidents is that many officers can commit misconduct under certain conditions and that major reforms to police training and policies are needed.

However, available data does not support this conclusion. Even over a decade, relatively few officers are found to have committed any kind of misconduct. The percentage found to have committed major misconduct is even smaller. And many misconduct cases do not involve the use of force at all.

The problem police departments face is not to completely rethink law enforcement. It is to identify the individuals whose records suggest they are capable of major acts of misconduct. This task is difficult, particularly because few departments are willing to analyze their misconduct data or allow outside organizations to do so. Relaxing these restrictions and developing new ways to identify and isolate problem officers may help reduce the likelihood of major police misconduct.

Official Crime Statistics

The best data about crime in America comes from the Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) System, which collects data from local police and sheriff’s departments. The two charts below show the trend in reported rates of violent crime (murder, assault, etc) and property crime (burglary, larceny, etc.) in America over the last 30 years. Each chart shows the number of crimes per 100,000 people.

The charts show that crime rates have declined by over 50% over the last three decades, with a very small rebound in property crimes during the COVID-19 pandemic. The same pattern shows up in data from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, which annually surveys Americans to determine if they have had crimes committed against them. At the national level, crime rates have declined, regardless of how we measure it.

Public opinion about crime

Americans believe crime is increasing. A 2024 survey by the Pew Research Center showed that 58% of Americans (68% of Republicans and 47% of Democrats) believe reducing crime should be a top priority for the President and Congress. Moreover, 77% of those surveyed believe that crime has increased in the U.S. over the last year, and 55% believe it has increased in their community.

The Pew report also notes that despite decreasing crime rates over the last 30 years, in 23 out of 27 annual Gallup surveys conducted during this time, at least 60% of respondents believed that crime rates were increasing.

Why do Americans believe crime is up when the national-level data says otherwise?  One argument is that responses to questions about crime reflect partisan ties, with Republican voters saying crime is a problem because a Democrat is in the White House. However, the Pew data shows that many Democrats are also concerned about crime.

A second argument is that Americans are responding to sensationalized crime coverage on local news media and social media. There is no doubt that Americans today see more stories about crimes than they did a generation ago. However, the Gallup data suggests that something else is going on. The mismatch between declining crime rates and increased public concern about crime existed long before the Internet.

Further analysis suggests a possible different explanation for the mismatch. The outcome may be a consequence of measuring crime at the national level. When we look at local data, a very different picture emerges, one where the public’s concerns about rising crime are more aligned with what the data reflects.

Crime at the local level: New York City

For our analysis, we use crime data from 2000 - 2023 reported by the New York Police Department. The chart on the left below shows annual crime rates in New York for seven major felonies (murder and manslaughter, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, grand larceny, and auto theft). As in the national data, the overall trend is downward, meaning less crime over time. However, there is a significant spike (over 20%) in felonies from 2019 to 2023.

The Take-Away

Many observers of American public opinion question surveys that reveal the public’s high levels of concern about crime. Why are people worried when crime nationwide has been declining for three decades? In communities experiencing similar outcomes like New York City, the answer is clear: local crime data reveals a different picture, with felonies up almost 20% in recent years and auto thefts skyrocketing nearly 200%.

This data suggests a new explanation for the public’s concern about rising crime: national trends may miss what some Americans see in their local communities. Crime may be declining nationwide, but at the same time, it is increasing in many communities, leading people who live in these communities to conclude that crime rates are a pressing problem based on what they are experiencing firsthand.

‍

What Is A Minimum Wage?  

The minimum wage is the lowest hourly wage that an employer can legally pay an employee. It is set by federal or state law. Currently, the federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. The federal minimum wage is set by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA applies to most employees, although there are exceptions such as tipped employees, people under age 14, and those working in certain agricultural or service industries, for whom the minimum wage is lower.

State laws can set higher minimum wages than the federal minimum. In fact, as shown below, 29 states and the District of Columbia have minimum wages that are higher than the federal minimum. Additionally, there are 18 states that require annual adjustments to minimum wage based on factors such as the inflation rate.

‍

‍

How has the level and applicability of the minimum wage varied over time?

The federal minimum wage has been raised 22 times since it was first established in 1938. The most recent increase was in 2009, when the minimum wage was raised from $6.55 to $7.25 per hour. The dotted line in the chart below shows the trend in the nominal (actual amount) of the minimum wage over time, while the solid line reflects  adjusted values that take into consideration inflation using 2022-era dollars. The adjusted values are typically a better measure of how much the minimum wage is worth in ‘current-time period dollars’ considering cost of living.

The plot of the wage’s adjusted values taking inflation into consideration shows that the purchasing power of the minimum wage has declined since the late 1960s. For example, in 1968, the nominal value of the minimum wage was less than $2.00 per hour, but the inflation adjusted value was over $11.00 per hour.  

‍

What are the arguments for and against the minimum wage?  

The central argument in favor of a minimum wage is that it puts more money in the paychecks of low-income workers. This argument is based on two primary claims: that no one’s wages should be below a certain standard for quality of life given the overall cost of living conditions and that without a minimum wage, employers will seek to drop wages as low as possible. The difficulty with these arguments is that people disagree about what level of pay is fair for workers and the actual effects of unemployment levels and hiring trends due to minimum wage mandates. Also complicating matters are topics like whether young workers should have the same minimum wage as someone who possesses greater skills or experience and may need to support others in their household.  

One central argument against the minimum wage is that it may reduce overall employment – that if employers are forced to pay a higher minimum wage, they will hire fewer workers, either because they cannot afford a larger workforce or because some workers do not add enough value to justify paying a higher wage. Another concern voiced by some, including small businesses or those employers operating in low-margin industries, is that the cost of absorbing such minimum wage will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for goods and services.

A related argument is that a minimum wage works against a free market where workers and employers are free to negotiate over wages and other compensation. By this logic, workers should be allowed to accept lower wages because they want to guarantee that a company hires them or because they are compensated in other ways, such as waitstaff who receive tips as part of their income. On the other hand, abolishing the minimum wage can give power to companies to lower wages, particularly during economic hard times when jobs are scarce.  

What evidence is there about the impact of the minimum wage?

This is not an easy question to answer. The difficulty is that employment levels and wages move up or down for reasons other than the minimum wage, such as economic shocks. For example, unemployment rose after the last federal minimum wage increase in 2009 – but this change was due to the Great Recession, caused largely by speculation in housing markets that had nothing to do with a minimum wage. Unemployment levels have been very low in recent years, but this decline probably has more to do with increased retirements during the COVID pandemic than with a stable minimum wage. Unemployment has been stable even as large states like California, New York, and Illinois increased their minimum wages.  

Looking across many studies of the effects of minimum wages, the central conclusion is that current minimum wage levels do not have any systematic impact on economic growth or unemployment; however, they can have a negative impact on certain businesses and the affordability of certain consumer goods and services. With this said, leveraging a minimum wage to support an increase in salaries of low-income, unskilled workers will continue to be debated, but it does help establish minimum quality of life standards based on current cost of living standards.  

What Is A Labor Union?

A labor union is an association of workers authorized to negotiate with business owners for better wages, more favorable work schedules, safer working conditions, and other employment conditions.

There are multiple types of labor unions. Craft unions are composed of skilled trade workers, like plumbers, electricians, and construction workers. Professional unions represent workers with college degrees, such as teachers or government employees. There are also industrial unions, which represent a wide range of workers in a specific industry. An industrial union may represent assembly line, skilled, and unskilled workers in a single industry, such as automobile manufacturers.

Under current law, unions are created by a vote of the workers at a particular business. These organizational efforts often involve support from a national union. Business owners cannot prevent a union from forming or punish workers for organizing a vote or joining a union. Once a union is formed, it can collect dues from workers and start bargaining with the business’s owners.

Why do businesses bargain with labor unions? One main reason is that unions can order a strike against a business, where workers refuse to do their jobs. Strikes can also be called for a set time, such as a day or even an hour. A union can also ask workers to stay at work but follow the exact language of policies or work rules, which is often as disruptive as a formal strike. During a strike, businesses can attempt to operate with management taking on worker tasks or even try to hire other workers. Even so, strikes are usually very disruptive and costly for businesses and the customers they serve. Strikes are also costly for workers, who are not paid as long as they are on strike, although some unions provide members with payments that make up for some of their lost salaries.

How Many Americans Belong To A Union? Where Do They Work?

In 2022, 10.1% of American workers belonged to a union. This figure shows that union membership has been on the decline for more than 50 years.

‍

The next figure shows the economic sectors with a high percentage of union workers. Union membership is particularly high among government employees (civilians) and the education sector. It is low in the retail and agriculture sectors.

‍

Why Has Union Membership Declined?

Union membership peaked in the early 1950s when almost one-third of private sector employees were union members. The decline in union membership is primarily due to two factors. The first is the decline of industries with a high percentage of union members. The auto industry, for example, which is highly unionized, employs far fewer people than it did in the 1950s. Many emerging industries, particularly high-tech companies, have very low union membership rates.

The second factor behind the decline of union membership is the increase in states with so-called Right to Work laws. These laws allow employees to work at a company with an established union without paying union dues. (The opposite is called a Union Shop, where workers must pay union dues to work at a business with an established union.) The figure below shows the variation in these laws across states as of 2023.

‍

Generally, union membership rates are much lower in Right-to-Work states. About 6 percent of workers in Right-to-Work states are union members, compared to over 13 percent in Union Shop states, and there are fewer companies where unions represent workers.

What Difference Do Unions Make?

Unions can make a big difference. Union representation likely correlates to an increase in wages: 2023 data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the average median weekly earnings of a full-time salaried union worker is $1216, whereas the median nonunion worker earns $1029. While this comparison looks at wage differences between jobs, more sophisticated analyses that account for these factors found that union bargaining increases wages and fringe benefits.

Labor unions are not always beneficial for workers. Some unions have refused to negotiate on wages and working conditions, even for corporations that must restructure in the face of economic hard times. Others have bargained for agreements that preserve high salaries for existing workers by accepting lower wages for new hires. Some union leaders have spent member dues on high salaries and benefits for themselves. And many companies offer generous wage and benefit packages even though workers are not unionized.  

The Take-Away

Many advocates for Right to Work laws cite cases of union corruption and inefficiency to argue that no one should be forced to join a union. At the same time, there is clear evidence that union representation can benefit workers. The question is, which of these outcomes do you consider more important? How the reader thinks about this question will determine whether they favor or oppose labor unions and how they view the decline in union membership.

What is offshoring?

Companies offshore their operations when they move some or all business operations abroad, typically from a high-cost country to a country with lower costs. Because countries have different labor and trade laws and standards, some portions of a corporation’s operations, like research and development, low-skilled assembly jobs, or customer service phone centers, for example, can be performed at a lower cost in other countries. Offshoring allows corporations to reduce their costs, lowering prices and increasing profits.

What’s the difference between offshoring and outsourcing?

A company outsources part of its operations when it contracts with a different company to provide a service or produce a product rather than performing that work with company employees. An example of outsourcing is when a company hires an accounting firm to manage financial operations instead of having an accounting department. On the other hand, offshoring refers to operations that cross country borders. For example, a company can offshore by moving its manufacturing operations to another country, or contract with a company in another country to build products.

Offshoring, particularly of manufacturing and low-skilled jobs, like factory-based assembly jobs, began on a large scale in the 1970s and 1980s. Offshoring of higher-skilled jobs such as accounting or research and development became more popular in the early 2000s.

Who engages in offshoring? Why do they offshore?

Many companies utilize offshoring, particularly in IT, manufacturing, and customer service. For example, car manufacturers frequently operate assembly plants or supply parts plants in other countries to reduce the labor cost of car manufacturing. Similarly, many companies operate customer service call centers in other countries because wages are lower overseas than in the U.S.

Some companies use offshoring to avoid U.S. corporate taxes by opening subsidiary companies in countries with lower corporate tax rates. According to one study, in 2016, over 73% of the Fortune 500 (the 500 largest corporations in the U.S.) had offshore subsidiaries in these ‘tax haven’ countries.

Leaving tax benefits aside, the primary motivation for offshoring is to reduce labor costs, usually by substituting cheaper foreign workers for employees in the U.S. This shift in manufacturing jobs occurred in the 1990s and early 2000s. One study found that over 40 percent of the decline in U.S. manufacturing jobs between 1993 and 2011 was due to offshoring. However, a second analysis found that in many firms, total employment did not decrease due to offshoring – the reduction in manufacturing jobs was offset by hiring in sales, management, and other areas. Additionally, average wages in offshoring firms did not decrease as manufacturing jobs were moved to other countries.

How much of the U.S. economy is based on offshoring?

It is hard to say. Many firms purchase at least some goods or services from sellers outside the U.S. A smaller percentage have located manufacturing, research, or distribution facilities outside the country.  

What is clear is that most jobs that can be offshored have already been moved. One well-cited 2009 study by the economist Alan Binder argued that as a percentage of total employment, the number of easily offshored jobs is relatively low. Binder divided jobs into four categories (examples in parenthesis):

• Highly offshorable (Computer programmers and systems analysts, telemarketers, bookkeeping, accounting)
• Offshorable (Computer software engineers, accountants, machine operators, team assemblers and production worker helpers, bill collectors)
• Hard to offshore (Operations managers, stock clerks, shipping and receiving)
• Non-offshorable: (Health and safety engineers, music directors, photographers)

The figure below shows the percentage of total jobs in America in each category.

‍

Binder’s analysis suggests that relatively few jobs in America (less than 10 percent) are vulnerable to offshoring. For the rest, offshoring adds new complexities or does not save money.

If only a few people lose jobs because of offshoring, why is it so controversial?

Offshoring has always been controversial. A 2013 study found that 95% of U.S. respondents did not approve of it, mainly because it would result in the loss of jobs within the United States. These opinions likely reflect the move of manufacturing jobs to other countries.  

While the data on offshoring suggests that not many jobs have been lost overall, these losses have been concentrated in certain industries such as manufacturing (especially autos). For workers in these industries, the costs of offshoring are immediate and large, and it is no surprise they are unhappy with the process.

A second concern about offshoring is whether the process will continue so that many other industries will offshore large numbers of jobs. However, a study by Mukherjee and others found that the increase in offshoring has decreased over the last decade. The authors argued that most easily offshored jobs have already been moved to other countries. As a result, past increases in offshoring are unlikely to be repeated.

What is the unemployment rate?

The formal definition of unemployment starts with estimating the labor force, people working or looking for work. This definition excludes people who are too young to work or have retired, people who are unable to work, and people who are not actively looking for a job, like those who choose to stay home to care for children. The number of unemployed includes only those who currently do not have a job, have actively looked for a job in the last four weeks, and can work.

To determine the unemployment rate, the number of unemployed individuals is divided by the number of people in the labor force. As of April 2024, the unemployment rate was 3.9%, or 6.5 million persons. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that teenagers currently have the highest unemployment rates among demographic groups, at 11.7% in April 2024.

What about under-employed people?

A low unemployment rate indicates good economic conditions, but it does not necessarily mean everyone is happy with their current job. An unemployment rate can be low, but only because of underemployment: people who are employed but are overqualified for their jobs or people who are employed in a part-time job but wish to be employed full-time. Including underemployed and part-time workers in the calculation increased the rate from 3.9% to 6.9% as of April 2024.

How has the unemployment rate varied over time?

The unemployment rate tends to follow the economy’s ups and downs. The economy has its cycles of expansion and contraction, and employment tends to follow this cycle. Unemployment rises with negative economic conditions as firms hire fewer workers or lay off current employees. Similarly, firms hire and recall workers when the economy grows and unemployment drops.

The figure below shows the yearly average unemployment rate since 1948. The plot shows that the U.S. has seen major spikes in unemployment during economic recessions, such as in the early 1980s and the Financial Crisis of 2008-2010. (See our Policy Brief on Inflation, linked in Further Reading, for more details.) The U.S. also saw a dramatic spike in unemployment during the early months of the COVID  pandemic. However, the unemployment rate rapidly declined as the economy reopened and workers were called back to their jobs. Current unemployment rates are near all-time lows.

‍

As shown in the figure below, the unemployment rate for Blacks and Latinos is generally higher than that of White Americans (the figure shows the same annual average as the earlier plot, but for a shorter time frame). The causes of these racial differences are debated. Part of the answer lies in different levels of education, differences in where people live, and differences in the sectors they work in. For example, unemployment levels for Blacks in the Upper Midwest are about 3-5 times higher than for Whites. However, unemployment levels are very similar in states like West Virginia and Kentucky.  

‍

Do some states have higher unemployment rates than others?

The economies of American states vary significantly – they have different kinds of industries and businesses. As a result, unemployment levels can vary across states. One state may have industries growing strongly, while another may be dominated by industries with low growth or even declining. For example, during COVID, hospitality industries were particularly hard hit, so states like Nevada, whose economies depended on tourism, had much higher unemployment than others.

In the post-pandemic era, unemployment levels have been similar across states, as shown in the figure below for June 2023. Overall, there is only a 3.3 percentage point difference between the state with the highest unemployment rate (California, 5.3%) and the state with the lowest (North Dakota, 2.0%).

‍

The Federal Reserve, tasked by Congress with maintaining a healthy economy, defines ‘Maximum Employment’ as an unemployment rate low enough that almost anyone wanting a job can find one and in which the inflation rate is relatively low and stabilized. While they do not make their precise targets public, most analysts believe that the Fed aims for 2% inflation and an unemployment rate of 4%.

It is important to remember that a low unemployment rate is not necessarily good economic news. Particularly after an economic downturn, many individuals may be underemployed. For example, while the overall unemployment rate in the 1990s was near historic lows as the economy surged, many of those in the industrial sector permanently lost their jobs as manufacturing was relocated abroad to take advantage of fewer regulations and lower wages. These individuals remained in the labor force but moved to lower-paying jobs. For more details see our Policy Brief on Offshoring.

What is Cap and Trade?

A cap and trade system creates a marketplace for trading the right to emit greenhouse gasses. Under this system, there would be a national cap on emissions. Firms that produce greenhouse gasses would be given emission credits, which is the right to release a set amount of greenhouse gasses, such as 1000 tons of CO2. Firms could use these allowances to operate normally or install equipment that reduces their emissions and sell some of their credits to other firms. Credits could also be purchased by pro-environment groups and retired out of the marketplace. Doing so would reduce the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions.   

What Problem is Cap and Trade Designed to Solve?

Cap and trade has emerged as a popular policy alternative to the more strict “command and control” policy – for example, where the government requires all firms to reduce their emissions by a set amount or mandates that firms install new technology to reduce emissions.  

While regulations of this kind can effectively reduce emissions, they can be inefficient and reduce innovation. For example, when the government sets emissions standards, firms are not motivated to install technologies that might further reduce emissions. Similarly, government technology mandates reduce the incentive to develop alternate technologies that might be cheaper or work better.  

Under a cap and trade system, the government’s role is limited to setting a cap on emissions. Firms then make their own decisions about how to implement this limit. Advocates of cap and trade argue that leaving it up to firms to make these decisions increases the chances that the best possible solutions will be adopted and strengthens incentives to develop new technologies that reduce emissions even more.  

Does Cap and Trade Happen Today?

There are a few cap and trade programs at various levels of government worldwide. California implemented a cap and trade program in 2013 and found that greenhouse gas emissions were reduced annually by about 9% from 2012 to 2017. However, as we noted in our brief on decarbonization, emissions declined across the United States during this time, though by a smaller amount.

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) focuses on electrical power generation among Northeastern states. However, the emissions cap is nonbinding and has produced only limited reductions in CO2 emissions. In recent years, states such as Virginia have withdrawn from the initiative.  

The European Union’s Emissions Trading System (established in 2003) is the only multi-country emissions trading system. The system’s emissions cap has evolved from being set by member states—who had incentives to make the cap high—to a more restrictive centrally determined cap. As the cap became more restrictive, emissions dropped, saving 1 billion tons of CO2 (about 4% of total EU emissions).

Why don’t more governments use Cap and Trade?

For cap and trade to effectively limit carbon emissions, it requires a cap on overall emissions that is progressively ratcheted down and a high enough price on carbon to encourage innovation and adoption of low-carbon technology. The RGGI cap and trade system had a nonbinding cap, meaning there was no penalty for the over-production of carbon. Similarly, the price of carbon in the European Union’s Emissions Trading System is quite low. Thus, despite its theoretical potential, cap and trade systems have had only limited effects because of how they were implemented.

Simply put, even if politicians are willing to enter into a cap and trade system, the system is not effective unless they commit to restrictive caps – even caps that are so low that businesses do not receive enough credits to cover their current emissions, and are therefore forced to develop or buy new technology to cut emissions or purchase credits on the open market. In this way, cap and trade systems give enormous power to governments, as they can set emissions caps at whatever level they wish.

The fact that cap and trade systems increase rather than reduce the government’s regulatory power is one reason why many businesses oppose cap and trade. From their perspective, a cap and trade system can increase energy costs, forcing them to raise prices or even lose business to firms in other countries that do not operate under a cap and trade system. Even if caps are initially set high, a company might worry that future governments would reduce them to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

How Many Electric Vehicles (EVs) Are On The Road Today?

As shown in the figure below, based on data from the International Energy Agency, the number of EVs on U.S. roads has increased substantially in recent years. The number of BEVs, or pure battery electric vehicles, increased sevenfold from 2018 to 2023, while the number of PHEVs (plug-in hybrids that combine electric and gas-powered engines) tripled. These numbers are small compared to the nearly 280 million cars and trucks Americans owned in 2023.

‍

How Is EV usage projected to increase?

The growth in EV sales is highly uncertain. Part of the uncertainty is whether the U.S. or state governments will mandate purchases of EVs (either pure battery or plug-in hybrids). Some states, such as New Jersey and California, have laws on the books that will ban the purchase of conventionally powered cars after 2030—either simple bans or pollution limits that will make it virtually impossible to sell conventionally powered cars. As this date approaches, the bans may be relaxed, particularly if public opinion rises.

There are several additional uncertainties. The first is whether EV technology will improve, particularly in areas of range (current EVs can be driven about 250-400 miles before requiring a charge), battery lifetime, and resistance to cold weather, which lowers battery capacity. A second uncertainty is whether current tax credits for the purchase of EVs will remain in place. A third uncertainty is whether EVs will become price-competitive with conventionally-powered vehicles, with or without tax credits – right now, they are significantly more expensive, even with tax credits. Finally, the widespread introduction of EVs would require constructing a nationwide charging station network, and create a much higher demand on production of electricity.

With all of these uncertainties, predicting what will happen to EV sales over the next decade and beyond is difficult. The International Energy Agency gives a wide range of projections, from EVs moving to be about half of U.S. car sales in 2032 to a scenario where they are almost 100% of the market.

Are federal, state, and local governments encouraging sales of EVs?

In total, 45 states and the District of Columbia provide financial incentives to encourage the sale and purchase of EVs, including tax credits, tax rebates, and exemptions from emissions testing. The federal government has also passed legislation to encourage the development and purchase of EVs. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 allocated $7.5 billion in federal funding to build a national charging network. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) extended a tax credit of up to $7,500 to purchase new EVs until at least 2032. Beginning in 2023, the IRA permits qualifying used EV purchases to receive a credit of up to $4,000.

What infrastructure changes are needed to support the widespread use of EVs?

One of the largest roadblocks to EV adoption is the need for a nationwide charging network. For most EV users, a fully charged battery is sufficient for daily use – enough to go to work, run errands, and then return home, where the car can be plugged in for recharge. The problem for current EVs (especially BEV or battery-only vehicles) is long trips away from home. In many communities, few (often none) locations can charge an EV battery in 20 minutes or less. Thus, widespread adoption of EVs would require a massive increase in charging stations, particularly in small towns throughout the U.S. Having an insufficient number of fast-charging stations could create a variety of logistical issues, spanning beyond just long lines and traffic congestion to safety concerns where ample space and parking hasn’t been taken into account.

Is the United States making the investments needed to support the EV mandates mentioned earlier? The current answer is no. A 2021 executive order established a goal that half of all new vehicles will be zero-emissions by 2030, including battery electric, plug-in hybrid electric, and fuel cell electric vehicles. That same year, the federal government’s Electric Vehicle Charging Action Plan created a target of 500,000 new public EV stations by 2030.

Is 500,000 enough? A Standard and Poors Global study concluded that the U.S. would need over 2 million new charging stations by 2030 to support an all-electric mandate – and many more stations afterward as EVs become the dominant vehicle on the road. Given the limited government investment, most of these new stations will be built by private-sector companies. As of now, there are no signs of an effort large enough to close the gap.

A second limit on EV adoption is shortages in the materials needed to produce EV batteries. Currently, 70% of global EV battery production occurs in China. Moreover, production in the United States is highly dependent on importing five minerals critical to producing lithium-ion batteries (lithium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, and graphite).

Efforts are underway to shore up the domestic supply of minerals used in EV battery production. Some solutions are easy: graphite can be mined from Alaska and Alabama facilities or easily recycled. However, some minerals are simply not available. For example, the United States has no viable domestic manganese ore sources. While researchers are investigating methods to recycle (extract and reuse) minerals in used EV batteries, a large increase in EV production would require new sources of all these materials.

The Take-Away

The number of electric vehicles on the road in America is increasing rapidly due to declining prices, increased capabilities, and government tax credits. However, the current number is small as a percentage of total automobile ownership. Constructing a nationwide charging network over the next six years to support vastly higher numbers of battery-only EVs will not be easy or cheap.

An alternative strategy is to encourage the purchase of plug-in hybrid vehicles that can use batteries for daily trips around town, but have a gas engine for long trips. At present, there are plug-in hybrid versions of most types of cars and light trucks. Purchases are eligible for tax credits under current law, which makes them cost-competitive with comparable gas-powered vehicles. Hybrids are not carbon neutral – they still produce CO2 when they use their gas engine. However, because they can operate in battery-only mode for short trips, hybrids can make a significant contribution to the decarbonization of transportation.  

What Is Fracking?

Fracking is a technique for accessing oil and natural gas from underground shale formations and existing wells where production has declined. A combination of water, sand, and chemicals are injected below ground to create fractures in the rock, allowing the oil and gas to move into a well for extraction. Fracking is incredibly effective at extracting oil and gas from areas that had previously been considered unreachable. It has contributed to dramatically expanding oil and gas production in the United States.

How Much Energy Is Produced By Fracking?

Oil and gas production in the United States had been declining from the 1970s to the early 2000s as all the more easily accessible reserves were increasingly depleted. The advent of fracking reversed this trend: the United States became the world’s largest natural gas producer in 2009 and oil in 2014.

‍

Overall, data from the US Energy Information Agency shows that increased fracking drove this change: production from shale formations – those for which fracking was developed – comprises 75% of U.S. natural gas production and 48% of oil production. And, as the second chart shows, fracking has led to a substantial increase in proven natural gas reserves in the U.S..

‍

What are the disadvantages of fracking?

While fracking has generated a massive boom in domestic oil and gas production, it has environmental costs. One issue is that fracking uses a substantial amount of water and can exacerbate shortages in areas where demand exceeds what can be supplied by local aquifers.  

Fracking also generates waste from drilling muds, flowback, and the produced “brines” that must be properly treated and disposed of. Whether due to equipment malfunction, human error, or improper storage practices, it is estimated that about 2% of wells dump these byproducts into streams and roads, damaging the ecosystem and contaminating drinking water with toxic and carcinogenic compounds.

Fracking has also been linked to increased earthquakes in the Central and Eastern United States. Before fracking, there were about 25 earthquakes per year in this region. Once fracking began in 2009, there have been at least 58 earthquakes per year. It’s important to emphasize that to date many of these earthquakes have a magnitude between 3 and 4, strong enough to be felt but not enough to cause damage.

Lastly, while greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas production are far lower than coal, natural gas wells may leak methane through loose joints and valves or from open wastewater evaporation ponds.

What would happen to energy production if we stopped fracking?

A ban on fracking would move the United States from being a net exporter of natural gas to an importer, as natural gas consumption far exceeds the production from conventional techniques. Similarly, ending fracking would reduce U.S. production of oil by almost 40%. These changes would cause a spike in both oil and natural gas prices, affecting families and businesses.

Beyond these challenges, an end to fracking would also present new geopolitical complications. By way of example, Russia is the world’s largest exporter of natural gas. If the U.S. were to depend on Russian exports, it would make it far more difficult for policymakers to check Russian aggression in Ukraine.  

Lastly, while fracking can negatively impact the environment, the increased natural gas production has reduced coal consumption by power plants and other energy producers. If natural gas became prohibitively expensive, a portion of energy production would likely return to coal, which has been found to be far worse for the environment.

How does fracking fit into the debate over climate change?

At one level, increased production of fossil fuels by fracking is a source of climate change, as energy production using natural gas and oil releases greenhouse gas CO2 into the atmosphere, likely contributing to increased global temperatures. However, increased production of natural gas and oil has led to reductions in the amount of coal burned to generate electricity. In this way, energy production through fracking is a low-cost way to reduce overall CO2 emissions in the short run and buy time to develop renewable energy technologies.  

‍

How does Sequestration work?

One sequestration technique, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), collects CO2 as it is produced by a power plant or factory. This method has the advantage of capturing CO2 before it is released into the atmosphere. The CO2 is pressurized into liquid form and then injected into rock formations within geological basins, deep enough that it will not leak back into the atmosphere. CO2 can also be injected into depleted oil and natural gas wells to increase production.

A second technique, Direct Air Capture (DAC), involves extracting CO2 from the atmosphere and injecting it underground. At present, this technique is only used in small-scale experimental facilities.

A third technique, Biological Carbon Sequestration (BCS), involves efforts to increase the biomass (plants and trees) in the environment, which removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through the natural process of photosynthesis. Conservation ensures that the carbon remains in solid form, or, the biomass can be harvested and burned to produce energy, with the resulting CO2 emissions captured and stored.

Can Sequestration make a difference?  

At present, sequestration is a minor contributor to controlling atmospheric CO2 levels. The Rhodium Group, a leading, independent researcher on climate and energy policy, estimates that the United States emitted 5,100 MM tons in 2023 (MM = million metric tons, one metric ton equals about 2,200 pounds), a 1.9% drop in emissions from the prior year. Sequestration was a very minor component of this decline. The United States houses 15 CCS facilities as of September 2023. These facilities can capture about 22 MM tons of carbon emissions each year (or approximately 0.4% of the total emissions in the United States).

Cost estimates for a larger sequestration effort that would capture enough CO2 to offset continued emissions are unavailable. CCS systems have only been implemented for a narrow set of CO2-generating facilities such as power plants. It is unclear how to capture CO2 from other major producers such as automobiles and aircraft. DCS systems exist today only in experimental form.

As for biological methods, an estimate developed by a team of scientists led by Dr. Thomas Crowther and published in a leading journal (Science 365) found that meeting the goal of capturing enough CO2 to limit global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius would require doubling the size of the world’s forests – a dramatic change in land-use patterns and one that might require government expropriation of privately-held lands. For more details on the laws governing expropriation, see our brief on Eminent Domain in the further reading section. It is impossible to estimate the cost of this effort, but it is surely massive.

It is also possible that increased CO2 levels could cause increased plant growth, leading to some additional carbon capture without human intervention. However, studies of this mechanism also suggest that higher CO2 levels could lead to increased releases of CO2 from decayed plant matter in the soil. Thus, it is unclear whether the net effect of higher CO2 levels on sequestration is positive or negative.

The introduction of large-scale sequestration technologies would raise additional questions. The capture and transportation of compressed CO2 requires specially designed pipes and storage facilities that are expensive to build. Moreover, the Environmental Protection Agency’s underground injection control program mandates a 50-year post-injection period in which the site must be maintained and monitored. It is unclear whether existing techniques ensure that CO2 will not leak out during this time, or what could be done to stop a leak once it started.

Current federal programs offer grants to demonstration and pilot projects for development of new sequestration programs. However, the success of these efforts is far from guaranteed.

The Take-Away

If large-scale, cheap sequestration was possible, it could be an ideal choice for reducing global CO2 levels. At present, however, sequestration is expensive and can only deal with a small percentage of global CO2 emissions. Without significant technological breakthroughs, sequestration is currently not a viable option for addressing climate change.

What do I need to know about redistricting?

Article I Section II of the United States Constitution states that congressional districts should be drawn based on regular counts of the population. Today, this is done every ten years based on the new population numbers gathered in the U.S. Census.

All redistricting happens at the state level. Each state is allowed to set its own criteria for how district lines for congressional districts and state legislative districts are drawn. As a result, there is wide variation across the U.S. in how districts are drawn. Independent commissions, designed to take politics out of redistricting, were upheld as legal in the 2015 Supreme Court decision Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. As of 2023, nine states redistrict through independent commissions.

What is gerrymandering?

Map drawers begin with the results from the Census and group voters into districts following the guidelines above. The two most common methods of gerrymandering districts are to “crack” and “pack” constituents in districts to suit the goals of the map drawers.

“Cracking” means dividing a given group and spreading them across several districts, thus reducing their voting power. “Packing” means trying to fit as many group members into as few districts as possible. One interesting result of partisan gerrymandering is that it can weaken a political party’s position and lower voter turnout. When districts are made less competitive, neither party leaders nor average voters are as likely to mobilize.

One way to measure gerrymandering is using the “efficiency gap.” Efficiency gaps measure a party’s ‘wasted votes’ or votes cast for their losing candidates plus votes cast above what their winning candidates needed to win their elections. To calculate the efficiency gap, each party’s wasted votes in all districts are divided by the total number of votes they receive across all districts. An efficiency gap exists when the wasted vote ratio is higher for one party than the other.

The existence of an efficiency gap suggests that districts are potentially gerrymandered. However, it does not prove gerrymandering. Even fair districting plans may create efficiency gaps because of how partisans are distributed throughout a state. For example, in most states, cities are more likely to have a majority of Democrats, while rural areas are more likely to have a majority of Republicans. The state of Georgia is one example, with Democratic voters concentrated in Atlanta. Because of this concentration, Georgia will almost always have safe Democratic seats in Atlanta and safe Republican seats in the surrounding rural areas. If districts follow the rules described earlier (keep communities of interest together, etc.,) there will be some efficiency gap regardless of how lines are drawn.

Maps drawn by commissions usually have smaller efficiency gaps and more competitive elections than maps drawn by state legislatures. By contrast, maps by state legislatures tend to have more safe districts and fewer competitive elections, reducing constituent electoral control and depressing turnout.

How does gerrymandering work?

Here is an example of how gerrymandering works. Imagine a state where 60% of voters belong to the light gray party, 40% belong to the dark gray party, all voters vote for the candidate from their party, and the state elects five Representatives to Congress. However, the population is not evenly distributed – all of the dark-gray partisans live on the left-hand side of the state, and all of the light-gray partisans live on the right-hand side. The graphic below shows three different ways to draw district lines and the election outcomes they produce.

‍

‍

In the left-hand panel, district lines are drawn north to south, and the number of seats each party gets is proportional to its number of partisans. Dark gray voters are “cracked” in the middle panel and split into all five districts. The result is that the light gray party wins all five seats by a 60-40 margin. In contrast, in the right-hand panel, light gray voters are “packed” into two districts, giving the dark gray three districts despite being only 40% of the population.

The efficiency gaps in these three plans capture the amount of gerrymandering taking place. In the left-hand plan, the parties have an equal proportion of wasted votes. In the middle plan, the ratio is much higher for the dark gray party. In the right-hand plan, the wasted vote ratio is higher for the light gray party.

What are the rules about redistricting?

Modern redistricting requirements began in the 1960s with a series of Supreme Court decisions. In 1962, the Court ruled in Baker v. Carr that states must re-evaluate and redraw district lines every ten years to account for population changes and movement. Before this ruling, many states had not redistricted in decades, even though the distribution of voters had shifted. In Tennessee, for example, one vote in a rural district was as powerful as 19 votes in an urban district.

The Carr decision (and subsequent cases) ruled that districts must be apportioned equally among the population. This is called the ‘one person, one vote’ principle – a vote in Congressional District 1 must have as much electoral power as a vote in Congressional District 2.

The manner in which states address race in redistricting has evolved. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires that everyone have equal access to voting, regardless of race, color, or language.

The Supreme Court’s Shaw v. Reno (1990) decision held that redistricting plans based wholly on race violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. This standard has been upheld as recently as 2023 with the case of Allen v. Milligan, when the Court rejected an Alabama redistricting plan that reduced the number of majority-black districts from two to one.

In addition to following the federal laws outlined above, there are three common legal standards. First, districts should preserve existing political subdivisions like county lines and townships. Second, districts should be contiguous (connected) with no “islands” (unconnected areas.) Third, districts should be geographically compact. Some states also ban changing lines in a way that would put two incumbents in the same district. Currently, nineteen states explicitly prohibit distributing plans that benefit one political party over the other.

Proposed districting schemes are regularly challenged, on the basis of racial or population gerrymandering. In 2023, more than 70 lawsuits against congressional and state district maps challenged the legality of redistricting. While the Supreme Court has struck down maps based on racial discrimination, it has not done so for claims of partisan discrimination. In the 2013 decision of Gill v. Whitford, the Court sidestepped the matter, unanimously ruling it did not have constitutional authority on the case.

What are energy tax credits designed to do?

The federal government often incentivizes behavior by using carrots or sticks. Tax credits, like a carrot, are a reward for engaging in behavior the government wants to encourage, like installing solar panels on your home. The alternative strategy is to use sticks, taxing people who do things the government wants to discourage, like operating a coal-fired power plant. Such taxes are discussed in our policy brief on carbon taxes.  Another form of sticks are cap-and-trade systems that limit the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by utilities and other businesses. The policy brief on cap-and-trade has details.  

What energy tax credits are available?

There are many energy tax credits at the federal and state levels. Here, we summarize some of the major programs. Federal programs for individuals give credits for weatherizing homes, installing solar and other renewable energy systems, and buying hybrid and electric vehicles. For example, the Energy Efficient Home Improvement Credit incentivizes homeowners (landlords and renters are not eligible) for weatherizing their homes and making energy-efficiency improvements. This credit is capped at $3,200. The Residential Clean Energy Credit refunds citizens up to 30% of the costs of renewable energy technologies such as solar panels, geothermal heat pumps, small wind turbines, and other renewable systems.

Federal clean vehicle credits reimburse up to $7,500 of the cost of a qualifying electric vehicle. Both individuals and businesses are eligible for these credits, which can cover purchases of new and used vehicles. The qualifications include that the vehicle can be charged by an external source, has undergone final assembly in the United States, and is manufactured by a company that has not manufactured more than 200,000 electric vehicles since 2010. (As of mid-2024, the last provision only disqualifies vehicles produced by Tesla.)

Businesses constructing or retrofitting buildings to be energy efficient can claim the Energy-Efficient Commercial Building Credit. Construction companies that build energy-efficient homes can claim credits up to $5,000 per home. Additionally, the Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit gives power-generation companies two options: a tax credit for money invested in new renewable energy systems or a credit on the electricity produced by these systems. Credits are also available for construction of energy storage facilities. There are other credits for producing clean fuels (those that produce minimal CO2 when used), building and operating nuclear power plants, facilities that reduce CO2 emissions from factories, and building electric vehicles.

What are the costs of energy tax credits?

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 extended many existing energy tax credits into the future, many until 2032. A Brookings Institution study estimates that the cost of these tax credits, in lost tax revenue and direct expenditures, will be $392 billion between 2022 and 2032.

‍

What are the pros and cons of energy tax credits?

Energy tax credits offer both direct and indirect benefits. The direct benefits include reducing total energy consumption and increasing the energy produced by renewable sources. In addition, tax credits can create a second benefit: if they lead to increased purchases of new systems such as solar cells, producers may respond by investing in production efficiencies and research that lowers the cost to future purchasers. As discussed in our brief on renewable systems, the price of solar electricity systems has sharply declined over the last two decades. Demand stimulated by individual and business tax credits is one possible explanation.

The largest disadvantage of using tax credits to shift towards renewable systems is that governments must make difficult decisions about which technologies to encourage, and is associated with financial implications and restrictions on individual, social and industrial preferences. For example, as the table above shows, over the next ten years, the federal government will spend over $50 billion on tax credits for manufacturing and purchasing electric vehicles. The goal is to reduce CO2 emissions from automobiles and trucks. Is a shift towards electric vehicles the best way to achieve this goal? The same funds might achieve larger reductions if used to improve existing vehicle technologies. As we discussed in our brief on electric vehicles, broad adoption of EVs will require significant investments in charging infrastructure. By implementing an EV tax credit, the federal government is making complex decisions that have long-lasting consequences, in many cases, without having a complete picture of all relevant factors that may impact the outcome of such policies.

A second problem with tax credits is that they can reward people for decisions they would make regardless of the tax benefits. For example, a generation ago, solar energy systems were uneconomic, meaning that the cost per kilowatt-hour of energy produced was far greater than buying energy from a local utility. Tax credits were needed to reduce costs and motivate individuals and businesses to install solar systems. Now, after sharp declines in the price of solar systems, people may buy these systems at comparable prices to alternative sources regardless of the tax benefits. If so, then the credits are depleting taxpayer funds while not having a meaningful impact on changing consumer behavior.

Due to lobby efforts and political influence, much of these tax credits and other incentives typically benefit only a select group of people with influence and power within the energy and related sectors. The credits can also influence land use and associated values for both target and adjoining properties (e.g. how would the majority of Americans feel if a neighboring property’s zoning allowed for a large solar or wind farm next to their home?)

Tax credits can also become feel-good public relations measures with little real benefit. For example, the figure above shows very little use of the credits for carbon capture. One of two things might be true: the credits are too small to change anyone’s behavior, or appropriate technology is not yet available. Either way, the tax credit is unlikely to have its intended effect.

What are the principal renewable energy sources used in the United States?

Renewable energy is defined as energy that is produced from natural sources like wind, solar power, geothermal, biomass (plants), and hydropower. For the most part, renewable systems produce electricity; the exception is geothermal systems, which produce heat. Renewables are different from fossil fuels in two ways. One is that renewable energy is predominantly available from naturally replenished sources, compared to fossil fuels, which are limited to what is available under the Earth’s surface. The other advantage of renewable energy options is that they are typically cleaner, meaning subject to the mining of select minerals and the discarding of key components with limited life expectancy (i.e., batteries, solar panels, composite blades for turbines, etc.), their operation does not generate greenhouse gasses.

Not all clean energy sources are renewable. Nuclear fission systems, for example, are clean but not considered renewable because they rely on uranium mined from the ground.

How much renewable energy is currently produced in the United States?

As of 2022, roughly 20% of the total electricity produced in the United States is produced by renewable sources. About 20 percent is produced by nuclear fission sources, with the remaining 60% produced by fossil fuels. (For information on non-renewable sources, see our brief on decarbonization, which is linked in the Further Reading section.) The shares from different renewable sources are shown below.

‍

Is the generation of renewable energy expected to increase?

The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that renewable energy will account for a quarter of electricity production in 2024. The percentage is expected to further increase over time.

The increase in renewable use has two primary drivers, both related to the U.S. government subsidizing adoption. First, the cost of renewable energy systems has been steadily dropping as a result of available funding for research to improve renewable technologies. One study found that the cost of electricity generated by solar systems declined by 80 percent between 2011 and 2021. Second, the U.S. government has established substantial tax credits to offset the cost for individuals and businesses to install renewable systems.

Is renewable energy cost-competitive with fossil fuels?  

Comparing the costs of renewable and fossil fuel systems is complicated. Estimates usually calculate the cost of building and operating different kinds of power plants, estimate how much energy each type of plant will produce, and calculate the cost per megawatt hour. (A megawatt-hour is the amount of electricity needed to run a typical US house for about a month.) The figure below shows the current cost estimates constructed by the U.S. Energy Information Agency for the various renewable and fossil fuel systems mentioned earlier.

‍

For example, a new solar electricity system can generate electricity at about $35 per megawatt-hour. Onshore wind systems are even cheaper, at about $30 per megawatt-hour. Both of these costs are lower than those of nuclear fission systems (about $70 per megawatt-hour), coal-fired power plants ($42), or oil or natural gas plants ($90).

Data showing that some renewable systems are cost-competitive with fossil fuels and nuclear power leads many to advocate a country-wide transition to renewable energy production. Unfortunately, the decision is not that simple. As mentioned previously, a major consideration is that these estimates potentially require significant federal funding and related tax credits to reduce the cost of energy generated by renewable systems, both for utility providers and consumers of electricity. Without these subsidies, costs would rise substantially.

A mass transition would also raise two other problems. The first is that these cost estimates are for ideally-located systems. Solar systems do best in areas with clear skies and lots of sun, such as the Southwest United States, while wind systems do best in areas with strong average wind speeds, such as the Midwest and Texas. Geothermal systems are limited to areas with large temperature differences at different levels belowground. Hydropower requires deep, fast-running rivers. Thus, the actual cost of a country-wide transition would likely be much higher than these estimates because some systems will not work as well as others or because expensive transmission lines will be needed to move electricity from one part of the country to the other.

The second problem is that these cost estimates are for additions to the existing energy infrastructure, one where renewables play a significant but not dominant role. With current systems, if cloud cover remains over a solar panel array for a significant amount of time or the wind stops blowing at a wind turbine farm for an extended period, the amount of lost electricity is relatively small on a comparative scale to all sources of electric power generation today, and fossil fuel plants can increase their generation to compensate.

However, if renewables were the country’s main or only source of electricity, utilities would need to invest in many storage systems, such as batteries and other storage technology, to ensure they had enough stored energy to ride out any gaps in electricity production to avoid planned brownouts and uncontrolled blackouts. As the previous figure shows, the current cost of energy storage systems per megawatt-hour is very high. Utilities might need several megawatt-hours of storage for each megawatt-hour of renewable power. When these costs are added to renewable systems, they are not cost-competitive with fossil fuels. The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act is funding research on cheaper storage systems, but none are currently commercially available today.  

Finally, each type of renewable system has unique disadvantages. Hydroelectric systems require building dams across rivers and releasing water in controlled amounts, harming fish and affecting recreational river use. Large solar systems take up considerable land, and in some cases due to construction have been recorded to leach unwanted chemicals back into the ground. Wind farms (particularly offshore) are sometimes opposed because they destroy scenic views and some speculate their construction and operation harm marine life. While there is no costless way to generate electricity, renewable systems in some ways concentrate these costs on a smaller portion of the population who live near these facilities which could be perceived as for the common good, whereas other non-renewable sources of electricity can potentially have a longer-term negative impact across a broader footprint, and again, rely on a limited supply of natural resources.  

Even if it costs more, would a transition to renewables solve the problem of greenhouse gasses?

As discussed in our policy brief on Decarbonization, electricity generation is a large producer of greenhouse gasses but not the only producer. Even if the United States could switch entirely to renewable systems, it would still generate significant greenhouse gasses from air travel to cement production. As a matter of reference, for each new wind turbine it is estimated 600 cubic meters of concrete is needed for the base of each structure. A full transition to renewables would likely not move the United States to a “carbon neutral” state where the net amount of greenhouse gasses entering the atmosphere each year is zero. It will also be enormously expensive.

Also noted in the Decarbonization brief: the United States is a major producer of greenhouse gasses, but other countries, particularly China, India, and Russia, are also major producers. Less-developed African nations may also become major producers as they develop local industries and increase electrical production. Even if the majority of Americans thought the best path to Decarbonization was to transition to renewable energy systems, this move would have a minimal effect unless virtually all other developed and developing nations did so as well.

What is decarbonization?

Decarbonization refers to transitioning a nation’s economy from relying on fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) to using clean (carbon-free) energy from sources such as solar, wind, hydropower, and nuclear.

Our brief on climate change discussed the logic behind decarbonization. Analysis of climate models ties higher global temperatures to increased emissions of greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide (CO2). These models predict that a large enough reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will eventually stabilize or could even reduce global temperatures.

How much CO2 is produced in the U.S. each year?

According to studies it’s believed the U.S. produced over 6 billion metric tons of CO2 in 2021. Some CO2 is used in industrial processes or injected into oil and natural gas wells to stimulate production. Reforestation projects also reduce CO2 emissions as trees use CO2 to grow and incorporate it into their trunks and branches.  

The chart below shows the estimated annual net amount of CO2 released into the environment by U.S. individuals and businesses.

‍

The amount of greenhouse gasses released by the U.S. has declined in recent years because of declining coal use to generate electricity and increased use of solar and wind power. However, as we discuss later, emissions from developing nations, including India and China, are increasing.  

What activities produce greenhouse gasses?

The chart below depicts the percentage of greenhouse gas emissions from different economic sectors in 2021.  

‍

The figure shows that transportation, including automobiles, aircraft, and trucks, is the largest producer of CO2. Electrical power generation is a close second, followed by industrial processes, including manufacturing. For example, one of the largest single contributors to CO2 emissions is the production of concrete and cement, which accounts for about 7% of total emissions.

The important message from this figure is that there is no one solution for decarbonization. Changing how cement is made will reduce CO2 emissions from these factories, but reducing CO2 emissions from automobiles will require a completely different approach.  

How far can Americans decarbonize?

The official goal of the current U.S. government is to reach “net-zero” emissions by 2050. Net zero means that whatever greenhouse gasses are produced in the U.S. are offset by CO2 removed from the environment by carbon sequestration, including biological activities such as tree planting. For details, see our brief on carbon sequestration.

Is this goal achievable? The answer depends on how much Americans are willing to pay and how much they are willing to change their lives. Some changes are already underway. Utilities are reducing emissions by closing coal-fired power plants and replacing them with renewable systems (wind, solar, and hydropower). Some factories are installing scrubbers that capture CO2 as it is produced so it is not released into the environment. Increased use of electric (and hybrid) cars and trucks also reduces total CO2 emissions.

Larger reductions to reach net zero will require more substantial and costly changes. For example, it is possible to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation by transitioning to renewable systems. However, as discussed in our brief on renewables, this transition will require a large investment in energy storage technologies such as batteries, mining of natural resources such as Lithium, and comes with other implications in areas like global trade and national security as other countries rely on fossil fuel exports from the U.S. and neighboring countries. Similarly, mandating electric vehicles to reduce emissions further will require building charging infrastructure nationwide and in individual homes. For details, see our brief on EV infrastructure.  

Some changes are impossible with current technology. For example, our system of intercontinental air travel relies on jet engines that burn fossil fuels. There is currently no alternate fuel that can power large aircraft across long distances.  

Given the practical impossibility of eliminating CO2 emissions, the net zero goal will require large-scale carbon sequestration. However, as discussed in our carbon sequestration brief, current systems that remove CO2 from the air are expensive, complicated, and have limited capacity. Moreover, plans to plant billions of trees to capture carbon dioxide require substantial land and may not capture enough carbon.

For all of these reasons, achieving net-zero CO2 without new technological breakthroughs will likely require substantial changes in our everyday lives—traveling less, using less electricity to heat and cool our homes, or driving an electric car.  

It is also unclear whether achieving net zero is mandatory to address climate change. Climate models confirm that increased CO2 levels are causing global temperature changes and other effects, but they are less precise in their predictions about what will happen if we achieve this goal or substantially reduce emissions but do not eliminate them entirely.  

Finally, decarbonization will affect local economies in communities with large-scale coal, oil, and natural gas production. For example, over 60% of U.S. oil is produced by three states: Texas, New Mexico, and North Dakota. Moreover, nearly 74% of coal production is in five states: Wyoming, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Montana. Decarbonization would likely increase unemployment and lower economic growth in these states.

Can America decarbonize on its own?

It could – but doing so might have little effect. While the U.S. is a major producer of CO2, its emissions are only a fraction of the world’s total. The figure below compares the U.S. to three other major emitters: China, India, and Japan. As the figure shows, emissions by the two developed countries, Japan and the U.S., have been stable over the last 50 years. In contrast, emissions from China and India are rapidly increasing due to population growth and industrialization.  

‍

The problem is this. Even if the U.S. gets to net zero, this effort will have minimal effect on global temperatures unless all other countries which are major producers of CO2 do the same. In addition, in much of the developing world, emissions are not stable – they are increasing. As a result, it will be much harder for countries like China and India to achieve net zero. Many developing countries oppose a global net zero goal because they cannot afford investments in clean energy technologies.

In sum, decarbonization is both a difficult engineering and political achievement. Substantial CO2 reductions will require massive investments, technological breakthroughs, and a high level of international cooperation.  

What evidence is there that the climate is changing?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that the Earth’s average temperature has risen by 1.1 C (1.9 F) over the last 100 years. The figure below shows average temperatures in North America over this time. The clear trend is toward warmer temperatures.

‍

Other indicators of climate change include melting glaciers and polar ice caps and a resulting rise in sea levels. Changes in precipitation and increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as hurricanes and heat waves, are also cited as evidence of climate change.

All these claims are the subject of intense analysis and debate. It is not easy to track temperature changes over time. For example, a portion of the network of scientific temperature recorders are in rural areas. Over time, these rural areas develop into cities, suburbs, or industrial areas. As a result, the data may reflect increased temperatures simply because developed areas are warmer than rural areas due to heat released by structures.  

Similarly, some studies have documented increased extreme weather events in recent years. However, it is impossible to determine whether a particular hurricane, flood, or forest fire was caused by climate change. In addition, when data is tracked regarding the severity of such storms, much of this data is based on threats to life and property. As areas across the globe become more developed, populations increase as does the cost of such storms due to an increase in physical improvements (buildings, bridges, etc.) in these areas. Furthermore, we do not know what would have happened in a hypothetical world where temperatures had remained stable over the last century.

Moreover, serious storms are relatively rare. One recent study predicted that over the next 100 years, there will be an increased likelihood of two severe hurricanes hitting the same spot on the east coast of the US during the same season. However, the probability of this outcome is still low, about 1 percent.  

Is climate change the result of human action?

The most-cited evidence for human action being the cause of climate change is the observed correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and temperature increases. CO2 is a greenhouse gas – it limits the amount of heat that can escape from the surface of the Earth. As we discuss in our policy brief on decarbonization, CO2 is produced by industrial processes, electrical power generation, transportation, and other human activities. Studies show that an increase in CO2 levels began during the Industrial Revolution. Levels have increased with higher population and development worldwide.

Critics of this approach note that global temperatures have moved up and down throughout history. At one time, the Earth was so warm that the polar ice caps melted, raising sea levels by several hundred feet. At another time in history, temperatures dropped enough that glaciers covered most of the planet. Given these changes happened without humans, why connect the much smaller changes in recent years to human activity?  

However, the argument for connecting human activity to climate change goes well beyond the fact that CO2 levels and temperatures have moved together. These conclusions are based on models of global weather that account for inputs like sunlight, biological processes, and the composition of the atmosphere. These models are incredibly detailed. For example, they account for the principle that higher CO2 levels stimulate tree growth, removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and reflecting heat away from the ground. Through satellite imagery, several universities and scientific groups have documented a ‘greening effect’ across the globe over the past 30 years.

At the same time, climate models have their limits. For example, while increased CO2 stimulates tree growth, the amount of CO2 captured by trees depends on what kinds are grown and whether they are cut down and burned. As a result, predictions made by these models have some uncertainty. They give a range of values for future temperatures rather than a precise number.

Additionally, when shifting the conversation of the potential positive impacts of increased CO2 away from trees to man-made crops like rice, wheat, soy, peas and sorghum, all used in mass food production, it’s plausible an increase in concentration of CO2 could signal a reduction in vitamins and nutrients like iron, zinc and protein found in these crops.

One of the central findings from climate models is that increased global temperatures result from greenhouse gas emissions. Most analyses also conclude that these changes are not the result of other sources of greenhouse gases, such as animal and plant life or natural processes like volcanoes. For example, one study analyzed the atomic structure of atmospheric CO2, concluding it results from human activity rather than biological or geological processes.  

Why do many scientists believe these findings? In part it is because the models incorporate known findings, such as how CO2 affects plant life. In addition, climate models generate other testable predictions. For example, one alternate hypothesis for increased global temperatures is that the Sun has become slightly hotter. If this change had occurred, it likely would cause larger temperature shifts at the Earth’s poles compared to the Equator. Data shows that the opposite is happening (temperature changes at the Equator are larger than at the poles), which is the expected result of increased global CO2 levels.

Why is climate change such a controversial topic?

Climate change is both a scientific matter and a values question. Scientists can test predictions drawn from climate models, identify limitations, and build and test better ones. Over the last generation, this process has produced an increasingly better understanding of how global temperatures are changing and how these changes might affect human life. As we have discussed, these analyses have their limits. However, it is difficult to justify ignoring this evidence entirely.  

At the same time, scientific research cannot tell us how to respond to climate change. People may have differing views on the nature of the problem or the viability of proposed solutions. For instance, transitioning to a low-carbon economy will produce job losses in some sectors, such as coal mining. It will require significant investment in new technologies, such as solar cells and wind turbines. This transition may seem worthwhile for people in coastal communities vulnerable to flooding and who are not concerned about potential implications to marine life. But people far away from coasts, or who live in a community sustained by fossil fuel production, may see this transition as undesirable.

Another example are proposals to ban the sale of gasoline-powered automobiles. As we discuss in our brief on EV Infrastructure, this transition will require significant new infrastructure at home and on the road to charge these vehicles, and has other complications, including the environmental impact of mining for battery raw materials, disposal of key components that are not biodegradable and increased demand for electricity. And in fact, many recent studies are suggesting that hybrid vehicles may actually be a more viable path longer-term.

For many people, it is a real question of whether the costs and drawbacks outweigh the benefits of a reduction in CO2 levels. Even if changes are implemented, they may not have the intended outcome. Furthermore, efforts made by Americans will have little effect if other countries do not take similar measures. Nothing in the science of climate change tells us how to think about these issues. It is up to each of us to decide how we believe they should be addressed.

Here are links to our other climate change briefs.

‍

‍

What is the Terrorist Screening Dataset?

The Terrorist Screening Dataset (TSDS) is maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Counterterrorism Center. It contains the names of over a million individuals identified by U.S. intelligence agencies as known or suspected terrorists. It was developed after the 9/11 attacks to make it easier for intelligence agencies to share this information with federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies as a way of preventing future terrorist attacks. An individual is added to the TSDS only if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that they are a known or suspected terrorist.

One important point is that the TSDS only identifies individuals as known or suspected terrorists. It does not include information on whether they threaten the U.S.. For example, the TSDS includes the names of individuals who are members of FARC, a terrorist organization operating against the Colombian government. The FARC has never organized an attack in the U.S. and, in fact, no longer conducts terrorist operations in Columbia.

Another problem with using the TSDS to flag suspected terrorists is the possibility of a false positive. In this situation, an individual’s name matches an entry on the TSDS but is a different person with the same name. There have been cases where someone has been arrested because of a false positive and later released when the discrepancy was realized.

What evidence is there for terrorists entering the U.S. from Mexico?

The Department of Homeland Security data for 2017 – 2023 is shown below.

‍

Source: Customs and Border Patrol (2023)

Encounters at ports of entry are cases where someone entering the U.S. at a Border Patrol facility is detained because a passport check shows they are on the TSDS. Encounters between ports of entry are cases where someone tries to enter the country illegally but is apprehended by law enforcement and later identified as being on the TSDS.

As the figure shows, both kinds of encounters are on the rise. As we discuss further in our Policy Brief on Border Security, there has been a sharp increase in border crossings in recent years. For more details, see the brief linked in the Further Reading section.

The increase in TSDS encounters between ports of entry is particularly concerning, as these individuals are trying to enter the U.S. without having their identity checked. The encounter data is reassuring at one level, showing that many terror suspects are being identified and detained. However, DHS data for 2023 also shows hundreds of thousands of “getaways” – encounters between ports of entry where an individual evades arrest. While many of these getaways are undoubtedly ordinary people who are escaping political persecution or economic hardship in their home countries, the concern is that potential terrorists are using this entry method to evade detection.

How high is the risk?

Does the sharp increase in TSDS encounters outside ports of entry imply an increased risk of a domestic terrorist attack? It is impossible to be sure, however, a concern is that as the number of illegal entrants rises, it might be easier for a would-be terrorist to enter the country undetected.

A detailed study of border security and terrorist attacks over the last 30 years confirms the need for vigilance but also suggests that analyses based on TSDS data need to be placed in context:

• There do not appear to be any cases of a person on the TSDS who entered the country illegally and was later indicted for planning or carrying out a terrorist attack.
• No Americans have been killed by terrorists who entered the country illegally. (Of the 19 individuals who participated in the 9/11 attacks, all entered the U.S. legally using passports and visas.)
• There are cases where the TSDS has flagged individuals not planning attacks against the U.S.. For example, 25 of the 27 people flagged by Border Patrol TSDS checks in 2022 were Colombian citizens and likely members of the FARC. Why they were trying to enter the U.S. is unknown, but it is unlikely that they were planning a terrorist attack.

The increase in the number of Border Patrol encounters with individuals on the TSDS is part of a larger problem with maintaining border security given the large number of individuals seeking to enter the U.S.. However, the issue of would-be terrorists entering the country is a different problem, one that requires scrutiny of all entrants, not just asylum applicants.

The TSDS data also raise a fundamental question about border security: how much is enough? There is no doubt that the number of illegal border crossings by individuals on the TSDS could be reduced through increased surveillance of the border in between ports of entry or even by deploying military assets to secure the border. The fact remains, however, U.S. records indicate that no illegal entrant has ever been directly linked to a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. This suggests that while greater border security would reduce some of the underlying challenges with immigration, these measures may still have little impact on preventing a terrorist attack in the future.

‍

What does the Constitution say about religious freedoms?

Freedom of religion is featured center-stage in the First Amendment to the Constitution, which begins with the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”. These two provisions are typically called the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.

The Establishment Clause states that the United States government must not establish a religion. The Framers of the Constitution did not want an official state religion in the United States, like England’s official Church of England. Today, the establishment of an official state religion is not regularly suggested. But other more subtle concerns about state-sponsored religion come regularly before the Supreme Court. The Court must decide what is included in the definition of “establishment of religion.”

The Free Exercise Clause states that the United States government must not restrict citizens’ practice of religion. This clause protects religious Americans and those who do not practice religion by keeping the United States government from making laws that favor or burden a particular religion.

Though these rules seem straightforward, other questions remain: should the government give public dollars to religious organizations? Should religious expression be allowed in publicly-owned places, like schools or city halls? Should people be allowed to sidestep government regulations for religious reasons?

What exceptions exist to this freedom?

The Supreme Court has held that the Establishment Clause does not mean that church and state can never interact. While federal dollars cannot go to religious organizations to support inherently religious operations, for example, the decision in Carson v Makin (2022) says that federal funds can still be allocated to religious organizations to carry out public goals, such as providing education.

The Supreme Court has also held that the free exercise of religion is not absolute. In 1878, the Supreme Court ruled that even though a man claimed that his practice of polygamy was allowed by his religion, this practice was illegal. This ruling established the legal concept that the government could not restrict beliefs – the claimant could still believe polygamy was acceptable – but could restrict some expression of those beliefs if they violated basic moral standards.

How does the Supreme Court evaluate questions of establishment and free exercise?  

To interpret the Establishment Clause, judges have traditionally applied the Lemon Test, named for the case Lemon v Kurtzman (1971), in which it was established, to determine whether a law violates the Establishment Clause. Under the test, if a law has no secular purpose, creates entanglement with religion, or is designed primarily to advance or inhibit religion, it is considered unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause.  

Historically, when deciding cases related to the free exercise of religion, the Supreme Court sometimes applied the Proportionality Test. This test asks two questions: First, does this law interfere with a person’s right? If so, the court asks: is this interference justified to accomplish the goal of the law? To determine if the law is justified, the Court considers whether or not the law has a good purpose, whether or not the right is restricted no more than necessary, and how proportional the importance of the law and the restriction of the right are.

In their 2015 Holt v. Hobbs decision, for example, the Supreme Court ruled that the government, in this case, the Arkansas Department of Corrections, did not have a compelling enough reason to limit an inmate’s growing of a beard as a form of religious expression.

This standard for judging free-exercise cases was refined in 1990 with the Supreme Court’s Employment Division v. Smith ruling. This ruling changed the court’s test of free exercise from the proportionality test to a test of how important it is to uphold the government regulation (called the ‘government interest’). If a law generally applies to all religious beliefs and expressions and has been administered and enforced neutrally, it does not violate religious freedom of expression under this test. If not, the Supreme Court must apply “strict scrutiny” to that law to determine if it is necessary.

Corporations are also granted free exercise of religion. This right was established in the Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling in Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby, Inc., which concluded that private companies are protected in their free exercise if they implement a policy based on their religious values.

Are the standards for free exercise and establishment cases evolving?

In recent Supreme Court cases, a new set of standards for deciding religious freedoms cases is beginning to emerge. In questions relating to religious expression and government establishment of religion, the Supreme Court has recently decided in favor of protecting existing religious expression, like allowing a cross to stand on government property in American Legion v. The American Humanist Association in 2019, and in stating that a high school football coach’s prayer with players after football games was considered freedom of expression, rather than a violation of the separation between church and state, in Kennedy vs. Bremerton High School in 2022.

In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020), the Supreme Court found that a Montana law that excluded religiously affiliated schools from a state scholarship program violated the Free Exercise Clause. This case helped to define the free exercise clause as understood by the Supreme Court in which “when otherwise eligible recipients are disqualified from a public benefit ‘solely because of their religious character,’ we must apply strict scrutiny.”

The evolution in the standards used to decide freedom of religion cases highlights two important principles. One is that religious freedom, like all civil liberties, is a complex matter. While private worship may not be controversial, issues arise when believers wish to express their views publicly, such as in the case of the high school coach. A separate set of issues arise when determining the relationship between the government and churches. It is one thing to say that the government cannot regulate religious beliefs, but another to say that it cannot provide the same assistance to churches that it provides to other organizations, such as if a church establishes programs to help the poor. It is difficult to come to the conclusion that there is one right answer to any of these questions, which is why the courts adjudicate them, why standards can change over time, and why we will see more such cases in the future.

What does the Second Amendment say about the right to bear arms?

The Second Amendment to the Constitution states that “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This language within the Amendment has been debated  – is the right to bear arms intended for militias or all people? Do these rights pertain to all firearms, or only certain kinds? Can firearm ownership be restricted, as other civil liberties are, or are guns a unique situation in American constitutional law?

Have interpretations of the Second Amendment changed over time?

Yes. During the 1800s and 1900s, the Second Amendment was interpreted according to the ‘collective right’ model of gun ownership. In this model, the Supreme Court interpreted the 2nd Amendment as protecting an individual’s right to serve in a collective militia and to own a gun for that purpose, but not for the purpose of individual protection only.

This interpretation began to change in the 1960s, with some legal scholarship suggesting the individual right interpretation, and maybe responding to high-visibility gun-related events like the assassination of JFK. Beginning in the 1970s, some legal scholars began to interpret the amendment as a protection against the potential for U.S. federal government overreach itself, sometimes called the ‘insurrectionist’ model. At the same time, individuals and groups supporting broad gun rights brought lawsuits against state and local regulations.

The Supreme Court has ruled only five times on the Second Amendment – once in 1886, and four times since 2008. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own a gun even when unconnected to a militia. In this ruling, the Court also held that these rights are not absolute, confirming that there is room for laws that restrict gun ownership.

In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v. City of Chicago that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments as well as the federal government. The City of Chicago had passed a law limiting the possession and carry of a handgun within city limits. The Supreme Court ruled that this ban limited individuals’ constitutional right to self-protection under the Second Amendment as interpreted in the Heller decision.

In 2016, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Caetano v. Massachusetts that individuals have a constitutional right to forms of “bearable arms” beyond just those that would have been available at the time of the writing of the Second Amendment. This case related to the possession of a stun gun.

Finally, in 2022, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen Supreme Court decision changed the test of whether state and local laws violate the Second Amendment. The ruling found that New York’s gun control laws requiring a person to show proper cause to obtain a license to buy a firearm was in violation of the 14th Amendment, which in part makes the 2nd Amendment applicable to the states. The Court held that a citizen need not demonstrate cause to exercise their right to self defense by purchasing a firearm, and that open carry of a firearm cannot be restricted except in instances where it incites fear and intimidation.

What gun ownership restrictions exist in the U.S. today?

Congress has passed a handful of laws to tax the sale of firearms and to establish regulations for the ownership and use of firearms. The National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 requires the sale of certain types of firearms (including sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, and silencers) be registered with the Secretary of the Treasury. The Gun Control Act of 1968 narrowed the definition of who could own, manufacture, or sell a gun.

States and local governments can also create ownership restrictions. For example, states can determine whether background checks or permits are required for handgun purchase, who can or cannot buy a gun based on the person’s past, age restrictions, and what will be required for licenses and training. Since 2008, many state and local gun laws have been upheld as constitutional, including laws restricting the concealed and open carry of loaded guns in public; bans on assault weapons, large capacity magazines, and silencers; prohibitions on dangerous people possessing guns; firearm design safety standards; safe storage requirements; waiting period laws; and private-sale background checks and licensing laws.

In some states, local governments have jurisdiction to regulate gun carriage and usage. For example, the City of New York issues its own handgun, rifle, and shotgun permits separately from the New York State government. To own or carry a firearm in the City, these municipal permits are required in addition to state permits.

The chart below shows state regulations of handgun carry. Twenty-six states, in black, do not have permit requirements for carrying handguns in public, and twenty-four states, in gray, require permits to open- or conceal-carry a gun.

‍

What are current proposals for changing gun rights?

States have widely varying approaches to gun control legislation. In 2021, a trend of enacting so-called “constitutional carry” laws picked up across the U.S., mostly but not exclusively in more conservative jurisdictions. In these states, no permit is required for a person of legal age (usually 18 or 21) to purchase a handgun or openly carry it in public. In some instances, additional restrictions apply, such as a permit requirement for concealed carry or purchasing restrictions based on criminal history. Currently, 26 states have no permit requirement for concealed carry, and an additional 13 require a permit for concealed carry.

Some states, such as New Jersey, require residents to file for a permit and complete additional steps in order to carry a concealed handgun. This process typically takes between 30 to 120 days. An individual must undergo a national background check, a firearms safety class, pass a field safety test including safe handling, loading and unloading, unholstering, and minimum marksmanship skills, and not possess certain disabilities. In the case of New Jersey, state law also restricts such possession in certain places, including zoos, public parks, public libraries, museums, bars, healthcare facilities, schools, and childcare facilities.

The federal Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, signed into law on June 25, 2022, narrows some definitions of who is allowed to purchase, own, or sell a firearm, including minors with histories of mental health issues, and dating partners with histories of domestic violence.

‍

How is freedom of the press protected in the Constitution?

Freedom of the press is guaranteed under the First Amendment. The Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The First Amendment also applies to the state governments through the 14th Amendment.

Although the First Amendment only references Congress, the Supreme Court has clarified that the scope of protection for the press from undue censorship includes any government agency, whether at the local, state, or federal level. This protection allows publishers to distribute information or opinions without government interference, prior constraint, or prosecution. While all branches have a hand in protecting the freedom of the press, the Supreme Court, through the power of judicial review, decides when the freedom of the press is being infringed.

Why is press freedom important?

The Founding Fathers believed the right to criticize the government and vote out incapable leaders were essential to self-governance. To exercise these rights, the public must have access to accurate and diverse sources of information. In this way, a free press is vital to holding elected officials and government institutions accountable. Additionally, freedom of the press makes elected officials aware of the public’s preferences on different issues.

Freedom of the press is also vital to setting the political agenda in a country. The media can educate citizens about new political topics and bring said issues to the forefront of the political agenda. A free press can also help strengthen confidence in government transparency and trust in government.

What are the potential drawbacks for society having a free press, and how is it protected?

An uncensored media can encourage the spread of factually inaccurate, intentionally deceptive, incomplete, one-sided, and otherwise dangerous information that could harm the public interest. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, information regarding the virus’s origin, motivations behind the public health response, scientific data about the virus and its spread, and vaccine safety were widely disseminated across social media platforms, as well as through books and other published material available for purchase through online sellers.

The government’s discretionary role can be complex at times, either in its effort to encourage greater visibility for certain sources of information deemed relevant and in the public’s best interest while censoring, suppressing, or otherwise limiting information due to the perceived potential of spreading misinformation. The challenge, like any decision involving a complex set of problems that encompass a varied degree of information, data, and scientific discrepancies and beliefs, is the government’s role in determining whether such information is, in fact, accurate or otherwise relevant and in the best interest of the public, and protected under free speech.

As the government’s  responsibility comes with a certain level of subjectivity, in some instances, the process in which information and data were considered protected under free speech caused harm, and in other instances, content that was considered misinformation but later determined to be plausible or relevant to the safeguard of the public’s overall health and well-being was suppressed. Both cases can ignite distrust in the government and public health entities. Such distrust can inhibit the government’s ability to serve the public, as well-intentioned policies are more likely to face backlash and resistance in the future.

Similarly, a free press can harm the security of the United States by publishing secret information about military operations or diplomatic efforts. While the government can prosecute reporters and editors for revealing secrets, these prosecutions are extremely rare, as they open the government to claims that it is simply trying to prevent the disclosure of embarrassing information.  

What exceptions, if any, exist to this freedom?

Freedom of the press is not unrestricted. The Supreme Court has agreed that, in certain situations, the government is permitted to restrict the freedom of the press. Current law prohibits the publication of libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, classified information, fighting words, and trade secrets.

For example, Dominion Voting Systems recently sued Fox News for defamation. Dominion’s technology is used to tabulate votes in many state elections. In their case, Dominion claimed that Fox News made false statements on air about Dominion engaging in election interference. Ultimately, Fox News settled the lawsuit, paying Dominion $787.5 million and admitting to making false statements about Dominion on air.

Prior restraint is when the government prohibits the media from publishing secret information. In deciding cases of prior restraint, the courts must consider when the importance of security outweighs the freedom of the press and the right for the public to be informed. The government must demonstrate a compelling state interest whenever using prior restraint. In most instances, the courts have determined prior restraint to be unconstitutional. In the 1971 case of New York Times v US, the Supreme Court allowed the publication of the Pentagon Papers, documents that contained top-secret information about the Vietnam War.

The publication of obscene material and pornography are other areas in which there are ill-defined limitations on the press. The Supreme Court uses a test (the Miller Test) drawn from the case of Miller v California in 1973 to decide whether something is obscene and can be restricted. The three requirements of the Miller Test are:

1. Whether the average person applying contemporary community standards would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
2. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law.
3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

That test has been used to restrict the press in many cases. For example, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) can regulate language on television.

How has the exercise of press freedom changed over time?

One of the first challenges to freedom of the press was the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, making it illegal to print or say anything malicious about the government. This legislation was unpopular and expired before the courts could rule on the constitutionality of the action.  

Issues related to freedom of the press did not come to prominence again until the 20th century. The Espionage Act of 1917 significantly affected freedom of the press. This legislation was intended to prevent the transfer of sensitive information regarding military and national defense secrets to enemy nations. However, the Act was used to target political opponents of President Wilson, who opposed the war, preventing  15 antiwar publications from being distributed via mail. The list of prohibited publications included Masses magazine, a prominent socialist, antiwar publication at the time.

Subsequently, federal courts have established stronger protections for the media.

• In 1927, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of making false claims in Whitney v California. Justice Brandeis established the counter-speech doctrine, arguing that the correct response to “false speech” was to have “more speech,” meaning the spread of correct information rather than government prohibitions.
• In the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan case, the Supreme Court held that one cannot be sued for defamation or libel by a public government official unless it can be demonstrated that the author knew the claims were false or in reckless disregard for the truth. This ruling solidified the ability of citizens to criticize government officials.
• In the 1971 New York Times v. United States case, the court ruled that the government could not use prior restraint to prevent the publication of the Pentagon Papers, which contained classified military information.
• Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects social media companies from being found liable for publishing content posted by users.

How is freedom of speech protected in the Constitution?

The First Amendment in the United States Constitution establishes freedom of expression, which covers verbal and nonverbal behaviors that express a person’s opinion, point of view, or identity. The Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech”. Essentially, this provision prevents the government from making laws that restrict speech. While this amendment addresses Congress directly, courts have interpreted the Amendment to apply to the entire federal government. Additionally, Courts have ruled that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment protects First Amendment rights from interference by state governments.

Why is freedom of speech important?

The Supreme Court has called freedom of speech, “the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom”. The idea is that free speech lays the foundation for other constitutional freedoms, such as freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and a free press. Freedom of speech is considered a fundamental human right because it enables people to express their thoughts and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. Free speech in democratic societies fosters open public discourse and cultivates an enlightened citizenry. Moreover, free speech allows for societal change by providing a platform for protest and affording minority voices an opportunity to be heard. The absence of freedom of speech would make it easier for the government to censor and control ideas.

What are the potential drawbacks of free speech?

The potential drawbacks of freedom of speech include the spread of harmful, false, or offensive ideas. Hate speech, such as displaying symbols of past oppressions or wearing offensive language, is legal. Harmful speech, such as speech that incites violence or targets hatred toward other groups, poses a challenge for democracy. More generally, free speech means we may be exposed to ideas or expressions we disagree with or do not want to hear.

For example, in 2017, two groups protested an initiative by the town of Charlottesville, Virginia, to remove Confederate monuments (one in support and the other in opposition). Each group claimed that they were exercising their free speech rights. A second example occurred in 1977 in Skokie, Illinois, home to many Holocaust survivors, when a neo-Nazi group wanted to march through Skokie. The group claimed that the march was a matter of free speech.

The exercise of speech rights can become problematic when doing so creates a potentially hostile environment or when speech involves calls for violence. In the case of Charlottesville, while there were no widespread calls for outright violence, a car driven through a crowd of anti-monument protesters resulted in the death of one individual. Courts have ruled that governments can restrict speech if violence can reasonably be foreseen.

There are some arguments that intentionally hateful speech, such as the Skokie case, should be regulated. The power to sue for defamation may protect an individual from inaccurate attacks on their character. Still, there is no protection from hate speech that harms a person’s character and dignity.

The Charlottesville and Skokie examples frame the debate over limits on free speech. On the one hand, most people would approve of suppressing some especially offensive views. On the other hand, the ability to express opinions freely is fundamental to democracy. The government’s power to restrict hateful speech might also allow officials to silence valid criticisms of policy or even limit the ability of opposing political parties to contest elections.

What are the limits on free speech?

Over time, Supreme Court rulings have shaped our understanding of free speech. The Court has applied a standard called “strict scrutiny” to cases concerning freedom of speech, the highest standard of judicial review in which limitations on free speech are permissible only if they serve a compelling state interest.

Even with this requirement, several limits on speech have been established by laws and judicial decisions. These limits identify some exceptions to freedom of speech, such as obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, true threats, and speech that is a part of criminal conduct. Laws implementing these restrictions have been found to meet the standard of strict scrutiny.

Speech rights are also affected by where people choose to express them. For example, governments can require people who want to protest in a public space to get a permit. Authorities can also regulate noise levels at the event. Protesters are not allowed to limit access to businesses or to accost people walking by an event. Organizations and businesses have additional powers to limit speech by their employees during work hours or if they use their affiliation while speaking. Moreover, there is no right to protest on private property.

In some cases, the courts have applied the “direct incitement test,” in which threatening speech is protected unless that speech aims and is likely to cause “imminent lawless action.” This test was first created in Brandenburg v. Ohio when a Ku Klux Klan leader made a threatening speech at a cross-burning rally in 1964 that was later televised. In 1969, the Supreme Court overruled a state law prohibiting such speech, stating that speech cannot be suppressed simply because it sounds dangerous.

How has the exercise of free speech changed over time?  

The Supreme Court’s willingness to protect freedom of speech has ebbed and flowed along with national security interests. During World War I, Charles Schenck was arrested for encouraging people to resist the draft. In the 1919 Supreme Court case Schenck v. The United States, the court created the “clear and present danger test.” This test allowed the government to suppress speech deemed dangerous, such as yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater. In 1940, Congress passed the Smith Act that made it illegal to advocate for the violent overthrow of the government. This Act was used during the Red Scare, a movement against communism in the early 1950s, to arrest suspected communists in the United States. In 1951, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of members of the Communist Party under the Smith Act, stating it did not violate the First Amendment.

Later cases have shifted in favor of protecting free speech. In 1969, the Brandenburg v. Ohio case created the direct incitement test and vastly expanded protections for free speech. The court’s willingness to uphold free speech is perhaps best exemplified in the 2011 case of Snyder v. Phelps. The facts of the case involved an incident where members of the Westboro Baptist Church protested the funerals of military members who died in the Middle East in 2006. The protest signs had vulgar language and stated that the deaths were punishments by God. Despite vast public outrage over the protests, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church because the protesters were on public land and remained peaceful.

Other Supreme Court decisions have established protections for speech that involves behavior rather than words. For example, in the 1986 Johnson v. Texas decision, the Court ruled that flag burning, as an expression of opinion, was constitutionally protected speech.

What is the size of student loan debt?

The total estimated student debt today in the United States is estimated at $1.7 trillion as of 2022. The average individual borrower has approximately $30,000 in student loan debt, and approximately 48 million Americans have federal student loan debt. As the chart below shows, the bulk of the debt is owned by people between 25 and 49 years old.  

‍

Why is student loan debt so large?

Today, college student debt is the second highest source of debt, surpassed only by home mortgages. Why? First, more young people are choosing to go to college today than in the past. In 1980, 49.3% of high school graduates enrolled in college or university enrollment. By 2021, the percentage has increased to 61.8%.  

The other factor is the cost of attending college. The figures below uses data collected by the College Board (and reprinted in a Brookings Institution publication) to show that while the sticker cost of both private and public universities have changed, the net cost (average cost paid by students after university scholarships, financial aid, and grants) has not changed substantially over the last two decades. (The figure’s data controls for inflation, with costs expressed in 2020 dollars – unadjusted costs have increased because of inflation.)

‍

A second factor contributing to the cost of attending college is that federal grants have remained largely unchanged during the last decade and that financial aid is increasingly directed to low-income students. The result of all of these factors is a greater demand for student loans to finance college education.

Who makes student loans?

Student loans come from two sources: loans issued by the federal government, and loans issued by private loan companies. Currently, the vast majority of student loans (92%) are those issued by the government, in part because they offer a lower interest rate to borrowers and do not charge interest until graduation. Private lenders are typically banks, credit unions or other lending institutions.

What proposals exist for student loan forgiveness?

One way to address student debt is through debt relief, either universal relief or a plan that targets certain borrowers. Full debt forgiveness would cost the same amount as borrowers owe today – approximately $1.6 trillion.

Debt forgiveness has both pros and cons. Particularly during the COVID pandemic, loan forgiveness was seen as a method for stimulating the economy. A targeted plan could reward graduates for working in public service (for example, as teachers or nurses) or in distressed communities. The federal government sometimes forgives other debts, such as business loans made during a national emergency.

On the other hand, forgiving student loan debt would significantly increase the national debt. Forgiveness would also benefit individuals who have no trouble paying back their student loans. And finally, proposals for debt forgiveness raise a fairness issue, in that the government is compensating college graduates without providing equivalent compensation to people who did not attend college or who paid loans back without assistance. None of the proposals being discussed in Washington address any of these issues.

Early in 2021, one proposal would forgive “$10,000 of debt for individuals earning less than $125,000 income (and $250,000 income for a married couple) in the 2020 or 2021 tax years, and $20,000 for recipients of Pell grants” (federal grants to pay for college). This proposal would cost approximately $373 billion. While this plan would lower overall debt levels and relieve about 30% of borrowers from any future payments, it would not address ongoing debt accumulation. This proposal was later held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

In addition, the current administration has implemented existing policies to forgive $127 billion in loans for some groups of borrowers, as shown in the table below.  

‍

‍

How many people enter the U.S. without authorization?

Pre-pandemic estimates of the number of unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. calculate the number as slightly more than 11 million. Analysis by Policy vs Politics included in the chart below shows that the number has increased to about 16 million by 2023. (For details and sources for this chart, see our policy brief on Unauthorized Immigration linked in the references section at the end.)

‍

For our 2023 estimate, Policy vs Politics analysts used the average of 2018-era estimates as a baseline, subtracting the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimate of the number of undocumented who left the U.S. during 2018 – 2023 and adding (a) the DHS estimate of the number of new illegal entrants during 2018 – 2023, (b) the number of refugees admitted in the same time, and (c) the number of individuals in the U.S. who have asylum claims pending as of late 2023. It is important to recognize that people in the last two categories (refugees and those with pending claims) are legally in the U.S.. However, their large numbers undoubtedly contribute to public perceptions of the size of the undocumented population.  

Three policy changes have led to increased admissions of asylum seekers. The first was the repeal of the Migrant Protection Protocols (more commonly known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy). This policy was created by the Trump administration in 2019 and later canceled by the Biden administration in 2021. It required asylum-seekers to wait in Mexico as their cases went through U.S. immigration courts, where they lived in makeshift refugee camps and were often vulnerable to crime.  

The second policy change was the establishment of Temporary Protected Status (TPS). DHS can give the TPS designation to countries experiencing political, economic, or environmental upheavals. It allows individuals from these countries to enter the U.S. and receive work authorizations. The TPS designation for a country lasts up to 18 months but can be extended. Countries like El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Ukraine, and Venezuela have been given TPS status in recent years. Many of these entrants have also applied for asylum, allowing them to remain in the U.S. indefinitely.

The third policy change, the parole system, was made because of the government’s inability to house large numbers of entrants at the border. Now, many of these individuals are released into the care of relatives and nonprofit organizations throughout the nation while their claims are adjudicated. Typically, their living expenses are covered by local, city, and state tax revenue, although those with TPS status can obtain work authorization. The federal government pays some transportation costs, although some states bordering Mexico have arranged transportation for asylum seekers to cities in northern states.

The reality of the current system is that many entrants will legally live and work in the U.S. for extended periods (years) while their claims are being adjudicated. An additional concern is whether those on parole will show up for court dates or leave the U.S. if their claims are denied.

Where are entrants coming from?

Historically, most of the documented and undocumented entrants at the southern border were single individuals (usually young men) from Mexico entering the U.S. to pursue economic opportunities. These individuals typically stayed in the U.S. for relatively short periods (less than five years) and then returned to their home countries. A separate flow of entrants came from Cuba, taking advantage of U.S. laws that grant permanent residence status to any Cuban who arrives by whatever means on U.S. soil (the so-called “feet dry” rule).

This situation has changed in recent years. The new entrants are more likely to want to stay in the U.S. permanently rather than for a short period. There are more unaccompanied minors and families with children. Current entrants also arrive from a wider range of countries, mostly those from countries with a TPS designation. In addition, while the feet-dry rule no longer exists, the number of entrants from Cuba has increased because of a change in Nicaraguan visa policies that allows Cubans to travel easily to that country and then through Mexico to the U.S.. Significant numbers of  asylum seekers come from Afghanistan, where the U.S. fought with the government against Taliban forces from 2001-2021, and from Ukraine, where citizens face attacks by Russian forces.

How does the U.S. enforce its borders?

The U.S. monitors its borders through ground patrols, aerial surveillance (including drones), and advanced technology such as cameras, sensors, and biometric systems. The Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency plays a central role in border monitoring. The CBP employs Border Patrol agents responsible for patrolling between ports of entry, while Office of Field Operations officers monitor the ports of entry. The CBP collaborates with other agencies, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the National Guard, and the Coast Guard, in these efforts. The budget for border security increased every year between 1990 and 2020 (from $262 million to $4 billion).

The budget for overall border enforcement (including border security and operations within the United States) is much larger. The U.S. government spends about $15 billion annually on border enforcement, including the operations of CBP and ICE. This budget covers many activities, including the construction and maintenance of physical barriers, the construction and operation of surveillance equipment, salaries, and the arrests and removal of unauthorized immigrants. The 2023 budget includes $17.5 billion in funding for CBP, including a $1 billion investment in modern security technology.

Barriers to block entry at the borders include physical structures such as walls and fences, many of which may be made from concrete and steel, while others, in some instances, utilize shipping containers, barbed wire, and other materials. Some construction is being organized and funded by bordering states such as Texas. Additionally, routine patrols using vehicles, aircraft, helicopters, and new technologies (cameras, drones, radar) are used to monitor the border.

The entire U.S.-Mexico border is about 2,000 miles long, but the Rio Grande River is about 1300 miles of this length. Before President Trump took office, there were approximately 650 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border out of 700 miles of land border. Construction of fencing continued during the Trump administration. Under the Biden administration, there has been limited construction of new walls, renovation of existing barriers, and, in some cases, removal of physical barriers. There is ongoing litigation at both the federal and state levels, impeachment inquiries regarding the handling of border construction and removal of barriers, as well as the allocation and funding of resources, including the National Guard.

More recently, enforcement policy has emphasized surveillance technologies over physical barriers. One reason is that low-technology tools can be cost-effective and potentially as effective as physical barriers. Moreover, border walls redirect unauthorized immigration towards more dangerous areas, such as crossing the Rio Grande River or the desert.

How does U.S. border security compare to other nations?

The U.S. has one of the world’s most extensive border enforcement regimes. However, U.S. border enforcement approaches are very different from those in other countries. Within the European Union, some regions have physical barriers and heavily militarized enforcement at their external borders. In contrast, others rely on policy measures such as bilateral readmission agreements with neighboring countries. For example, the EU works with Libya’s government to stop immigration through the Mediterranean by providing support for the Libyan Coast Guard. The EU also agreed with Turkey’s government that migrants attempting to enter Greece would be returned to Turkey. Additionally, countries like Australia employ maritime patrols and offshore processing of asylum seekers.

What are the consequences of changing current policies?

The reality of current border security is that the system is overloaded. Border agents must patrol a long, largely desert border to deter entrants. Experience suggests that physical barriers alone are not a deterrent. The simple fact is that coming to the U.S. represents a huge economic opportunity for individuals living in Central and South America, as well as other regions of the world. Although it is unclear under these conditions what measures would be sufficient to cut down on the number of illegal entrants, recent data suggests the current administration’s policies as perceived in the global community are giving more immigrants hope they will not be turned back on arrival at the U.S. border.

Ongoing negotiations in the U.S. Senate on revisions to border policies have focused on setting daily quotas for refugee-seekers. Sustained levels above these quotas would automatically suspend many current policies favorable to asylum seekers, including the TPS and parole systems. On the one hand, these policies would limit the number of people admitted to the U.S.. On the other, opponents of refugee admissions see the proposed quotas (5000 per day) as giving implied approval to entry levels that they see as unacceptably high.

Quotas are unlikely to solve the border crisis regardless of where they are set. If refugees are turned away at the border, it is not clear where they will go. The strong possibility is that they would remain in refugee camps at the U.S.-Mexico border in the hopes that U.S. policy would change. U.S. and Mexican officials are currently engaged in ongoing meetings to develop joint initiatives to manage the refugee situation. Still, there is no assurance that these efforts will succeed.

In sum, there are no easy, costless solutions to the situation at the southern border:

• Adding immigration judges to decide cases will help reduce the backlog, but only over time, and may even encourage more people to try to enter the U.S..
• Policies that require employers to verify new hires are in the U.S. legally force undocumented individuals to work on a cash basis and make them vulnerable to exploitation.
• Finding illegal entrants would require house-to-house searches and raises concerns about violating the civil liberties of U.S. citizens.
• Ending the TPS and parole programs gives asylum seekers very few options: return to their home country and whatever problems prompted them to leave, live in a refugee camp in Mexico, or try to enter the U.S. illegally.

What are the rules governing classified information?

The classification system is primarily governed via a series of executive orders issued by the president. The current system was first started by Executive Order 10290, issued by President Truman in 1951. It has then been expanded and modified several times, with the most recent change made with Executive Order 13526, issued in 2009, which revised standards for declassifying information.

Classified documents are critical to maintaining national security, upholding foreign relationships, and protecting intelligence operations. A document is not properly classified unless it meets two requirements: 1) its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause identifiable or describable damage to national security, and 2) it pertains to one of 8 designated topics, including military plans and weapons systems, foreign government information, intelligence activities, and other national-security-related information. For example, information about how gold is stored at Fort Knox has been classified for nearly a century.

What are the levels of classification?

Classification levels are determined by how much damage could be caused to national security if the information was made public. Anything that threatens “exceptionally grave damage to national security” is considered Top Secret. Information that could cause “serious damage” is classified as Secret. Information that could cause some damage but not grave levels of damage is classified as Confidential.

The number of currently classified documents is difficult to assess. This number is quite large because of the broad definition of classified information. Some sources estimate that 50 million federal documents are currently classified at some level.

What does it take to access classified information?

Classified information is generally only accessible to those whose job relies on the information, also called a ‘need-to-know’ basis. The higher the security classification, the stricter this principle is.

All government officials granted access to classified information have signed non-disclosure agreements and passed a background check that aims to determine several things about the individual: that they are loyal to the United States, are reliable and stable, and have no allegiance to foreign governments.

As of 2017, 1.2 million individuals had access to top-secret information, and another 1.6 million had access to all other levels of classified information. In addition, another 1.2 million are eligible for access but do not have active access to classified information. Those with access include military personnel, government contractors, federal agency employees, and high-level agency heads and officials.

Presidential records are governed by the Presidential Records Act of 1978, which establishes that all presidential papers – documents created while the president and his staff are in office – belong to the United States. Presidential papers are turned over to the National Archives for organization and retention, and non-classified papers are made public after twelve years.

Who has the authority to classify and declassify?

The individual who creates a classified document chooses the classification level to which the document should be assigned. Documents may be classified by the President, the Vice President, agency heads, and individuals designated by the President or agency heads.

By law, Presidents have the authority to classify and declassify information. The Information Security Oversight Office has developed formal procedures for declassification in compliance with classification rules established by Executive Order 13526, issued in 2009. However, documents remain classified until a formal order is issued and recorded. A President or former President’s assertion that they declassified a document is not enough to establish this fact.

Former Presidents have no authority to classify or declassify information. Former Presidents may have access to classified information they created, reviewed, signed, or received during their term in office. This access is facilitated by the Archivist of the United States, who sends documents to a former President on request.

Records are declassified automatically after at most 25 years unless they contain national security information that is still relevant. The National Declassification Center, established by Executive Order 13526 in 2009, handles the declassification of records that have historically important value.

What does it take to violate classification laws? Does this happen?

Most violations of the laws governing classified documents involve the unauthorized removal or retention of such documents. Examples include an authorized employee keeping classified documents in their home (intentionally or otherwise) because homes are not considered secure locations for classified documents. Violations could also include transmitting or communicating classified information to others, like press members, or, in the most extreme cases, giving classified information to a foreign government.

There are many examples of government officials being prosecuted for mishandling classified information. Sandy Berger, a former National Security Advisor, removed classified documents from a National Archives reading room. The violation was a misdemeanor at the time, and the Court ordered a fine, community service, probation, and revoking of security clearance for three years. Retired General and CIA Director David Petraeus was convicted for sharing classified information with a biographer, receiving a suspended sentence and a fine. Other government employees and contractors have received substantial prison sentences for mishandling classified information.

For government officials, decisions to prosecute for mishandling classified information often consider a defendant’s knowledge of whether a violation has been committed and how they responded to inquiries regarding classified information. Both Berger and Petraeus, for example, initially lied to investigators about their actions. Although there have been exceptions, individuals are generally not prosecuted if they promptly report that they possess classified documents and return them immediately.  

How Is K-12 education funded in the United States?

Funding for K-12 education in the United States is shared between the federal, state, and local governments, with state and local governments providing the largest portions. The federal government provides roughly 10% of all K-12 school funding (about $800 billion in 2021), while on average, local and state governments share the remaining 90% roughly equally.

‍

How do states fund K-12 schools?

The map below shows the variation in total spending across states for 2023: the state spending the most money per student was New York, which spent nearly $25,000 per student, and the state spending the least money per student was Utah, which spent just $8,000. The average spending per student across the country is $15,000 per student.

‍

All states contribute a portion of local education costs. Typically, these subsidies involve a flat amount per student plus more funding for students with additional needs, like English as a Second Language (ESL), low-income, and at-risk students. However, the size of the state subsidy varies considerably. For example, in California, over 60% of school funding comes from the state, while in Ohio, the percentage is around 40%. State funding comes from taxes on individual and business income, while local funding is usually based on property taxes (taxes on home and business property).

What are the pros and cons of using property taxes to fund education?

No system of school funding is perfect. When funding schools from state income taxes, the system is considered progressive, meaning wealthier individuals typically pay more as a percentage of their income than individuals earning less. A state funding system may also allow funds to be targeted towards poorer districts and those having a higher percentage of disadvantaged students. Relying on state funding has historically been politically unpopular, as taxpayers are funding schools in other communities that their children will not use. By contrast, property tax-based systems tend to be more regressive, meaning it is very likely wealthier individuals pay less as a percentage of their income than those earning less money, however, properties with higher values do generate greater tax revenue. Property taxes also offer a stable revenue source yearly, as property valuations may not change much, even in a recession. Property tax systems are also popular among people who oppose having their taxes pay for schools in other communities.

Funding schools using property taxes can disadvantage poorer communities, as they may not have the tax base to fund their schools adequately. One study by the Economic Policy Institute calculated the amount of per-student spending needed by different school districts to bring student test scores to the national average. Highest-poverty districts required the most funding, $18,231 per student, versus only $8,313 in the lowest-poverty districts. (The higher funding for highest-poverty districts is intended to remedy existing skills disparities.) Actual spending in the highest-poverty districts was only $13,096 per student, only about 70% of the required amount. In contrast, per-student funding in the lowest-poverty districts was $10,239, about 20% more than needed. Neither state income nor property tax funding addresses the fact that many taxpayers feel they disproportionately pay into the school system based on having fewer or no children.

Does spending on education matter?

Generally speaking, it does. As shown below in the figure that compares 2021 state-level spending with the percentage of 8th-graders who scored “proficient” or higher on the 2021 National Assessment of Educational Progress test, there is a clear relationship between spending per pupil and educational achievement.

‍

Students in low-income districts, in most cases, are the ones who typically require more funding to overcome socioeconomic barriers to student success. In other words, the current system of funding school districts means that students who need funding the most do not always receive adequate funding to improve test scores. In addition to overall funding, other variables can impact test scores and students achieving desired learning objectives. Some topics that have been the focus of public debate include allocating administrator, teacher, and faculty salaries, further investments in professional development and project-based / experiential learning, restructuring teacher tenure, and other aspects of home, community, and school life.

How is the federal government involved in K-12 education?

The federal government has a significant but limited role in K-12 funding, most notably through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). ESEA established the Title I funding system for low-income school districts. As shown in the chart below using 2018 data, the average funding for Title I varies across states, ranging from just above $150 per student to nearly $500. For a school that qualifies for Title I funds, the average grant per student is about $1300.

‍

In the modern era, the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015  vastly limited federal involvement in K-12 education and gave back wide discretion to the states. Today, the federal government’s role in education funding and regulation is focused more on subsidies to public higher education rather than K-12 education, although, as noted earlier, the various federal K-12 education programs provide about $80 billion a year to K-12 schools and school districts.

Federal funds also flow to local school districts for support for disabled students and for free and reduced-price lunch programs. The School Lunch Program provides free or reduced lunches for students according to their family’s income level. In 2022-2023, for example, students from a family of three are eligible for free lunch if their family income is less than $29,939. Approximately 19.6 million children received free or reduced-price lunches in the 2020-2021 school year.

How large is the unauthorized population in the United States?  

Immigrants to the United States are either authorized immigrants or unauthorized immigrants. Authorized immigrants are those who hold a visa or refugee status that allows legal residence. Unauthorized individuals either enter without these documents or remain in the country after their travel visa has expired. A third category is individuals who have applied for asylum – while their case is being decided (which can take years), they are generally paroled to stay in the U.S.  

As of 2018, estimates of the unauthorized population in the U.S. amount to about 11 million individuals (see figure below). This total was about 23% of the total foreign-born population (people born outside the US but currently living in the country). The other 77% of the foreign-born population comprises authorized immigrants, including temporary visa holders, legal permanent residents (green card holders), and naturalized citizens.

As of late 2023, calculations based on available data by Policy vs Politics analysts show there are about 16 million individuals in the US who are either undocumented, have applied for refugee status but have not had their claims adjudicated, or were recently admitted as refugees. As the figures below show, this total is substantially higher than in 2018, when the last available official estimates were released by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other credible private sources.  

For our 2023 estimate, Policy vs Politics analysts used the average of the 2018 estimates as a baseline, subtracting the DHS estimate of the number of undocumented who left the US during 2018 – 2023 and adding (a) the DHS estimate of the number of new illegal entrants during 2018 – 2023, (b) the number of refugees admitted in the same time, and (c) the number of individuals in the US who have asylum claims pending as of late 2023. It is important to recognize that people in the last two categories (refugees and those with pending claims) are in the US legally.  However, these large numbers undoubtedly contribute to public perceptions of the size of the undocumented population. As the figure shows, some of the 2018 unauthorized immigrants left by 2023 – but this decrease is more than offset by increases in the other categories.

‍

‍

Because of the increase in those with refugee status, pending asylum, or who have entered the U. S. illegally, the percentage of the U. S. population that is undocumented or resident pending an asylum application has significantly increased in recent years after being more-or-less constant since 2000. This trend is shown in the figure below, which adds the Policy vs Politics 2023 estimate to Pew Research Center data for 1990 – 2017.

‍

Who are the “Dreamers?”

About 5% (580,000) of the unauthorized population are individuals brought to the United States as children by their parents. These individuals are referred to as Dreamers and are treated differently than other unauthorized immigrants. The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) allows these individuals to obtain temporary social security numbers, resident status, and work permits for two-year renewable intervals. DACA was created by a Presidential order in 2012, and a future President could end the program. Individuals eligible for DACA are those who entered the United States before they turned 16 and were under 31 years of age as of 2012. In some states, DACA recipients can attend state colleges and universities and pay in-state tuition rates. However, DACA recipients are not eligible for Medicaid or SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or food stamps) benefits.

Where do unauthorized migrants come from?

Unauthorized immigrants come from around the world. After World War II, many unauthorized immigrants came from Western and Eastern Europe. Estimates place the majority of current arrivals – about 70% – arriving from Mexico and Central America, including El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Venezuela. About 15% of unauthorized immigrants come from Asia, mostly from India, China, and the Philippines. For more details on these trends, see our policy brief on Border Security.

Can unauthorized migrants gain legal residency in the US?

Most unauthorized immigrants would prefer to obtain authorized status because that enables them to work legally and live without fear of deportation. Legal status also enables them to apply for U.S. citizenship. People who have entered the country without permission or overstayed their visas are not eligible to become legal permanent residents. Historically, some unauthorized immigrants are granted permanent resident status through the asylum or refugee process, but these numbers are small compared to the undocumented population. It is unclear whether this pattern will change, given the recent spike in asylum claims.  

What are the economic and social consequences of unauthorized migration?

One common concern about unauthorized immigration is that unauthorized immigrants take jobs and other resources away from American citizens. A related concern is that the presence of unauthorized immigrants may contribute to crime, or alter the culture and values of the US. These concerns have been researched by reputable social scientists (see the Source section for cites), reaching the following conclusions:

1. Labor force participation among unauthorized immigrants is higher than that of both permanent residents and native-born citizens. Unauthorized immigrants generally fill jobs Americans do not want, such as seasonal or low-paying jobs in agriculture and service industries.
2. Several studies have found that unauthorized immigrants had lower crime rates compared to American citizens and authorized immigrants and that communities with large immigrant populations had lower crime rates compared to communities with fewer immigrants. Notwithstanding these findings, it is clear that some individuals who cross the border without permission are doing so to engage in criminal activity, such as the importation of illegal drugs, including fentanyl. For additional details, see our policy brief on Border Security cited in the Further Reading section.
3. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 excludes most legal permanent residents and unauthorized immigrants from federal, state, and local social welfare programs. As a result, unauthorized immigrants are not eligible for most benefits, including welfare and Medicaid. However, because many unauthorized immigrants pay into Social Security as a condition of employment (using fake Social Security numbers) but are ineligible for benefits, they contribute to the fiscal health of the program.
4. Local schools cannot deny unauthorized immigrant youth enrollment in public schools. Research shows state and local governments are most fiscally impacted by high levels of unauthorized immigration, as public schools are organized and funded at the state and local levels. Depending on housing arrangements, undocumented immigrants may or may not pay property taxes, which comprise a large portion of school funding. For example, in September 2023, estimates were that out of 800,000 elementary and secondary students in New York City, 20,000 were undocumented.  
5. New York City uniquely has a ‘right to shelter’ mandate, which specifies that the city must provide shelter to anyone who asks for it. This has notably strained city resources as it has provided shelters for Venezuelan and other migrants in the city seeking asylum – who have recently been given special status to apply for work authorization.

What are the main provisions of the Espionage Act?

The Espionage Act of 1917 is a United States federal law enacted shortly after the U.S. entry into World War I. It was intended to prevent the disclosure of information that could interfere with military operations or aid the country’s enemies.

The main provisions of the Espionage Act include:

1. It is illegal to obtain or disclose information related to national defense with the intent or reason to believe the information will be used to harm the United States or aid a foreign entity.
2. The Act makes it a crime to spy, to aid spies, or to mishandle national defense information.
3. Violations of the Espionage Act can result in heavy fines and imprisonment.

The Espionage Act, while originally aimed at countering spying and sabotage, serves to protect sensitive national defense information. This aspect is crucial in safeguarding national security and maintaining the U.S.’ strategic advantages. By criminalizing the unauthorized disclosure of such information, the Espionage Act is a deterrent against potential national security breaches.  

Do you have to help a foreign government to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act?

No. Supreme Court rulings and Congressional amendments have interpreted the Espionage Act to prohibit actions beyond direct releases of government defense information to benefit foreign nations or factions. An individual can be prosecuted under the Espionage Act if they release classified information to the public or the news media if it is found that they intended or had reason to believe that the release of the information would lead to injury to the United States. Efforts to release information do not have to be successful to trigger prosecution. Proof of intent to release sensitive information is enough to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. It is also illegal to harbor or conceal an individual who has committed or intends to commit an offense under the Espionage Act.

Who has been prosecuted under the Espionage Act?

Cases under the Espionage Act have ranged from accusations of trading/giving classified information about the US military and state of national defense to other nations to releasing classified information to the media and mishandling of classified information.

Individuals have been prosecuted under the Espionage Act for facilitating the transfer of sensitive military/ information to foreign governments. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were both found guilty under the Espionage Act in 1951. The married couple was found guilty of conspiring to give secret information about the US efforts to develop the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union. John Walker, a former navy officer, was convicted of spying for the Soviet Union in 1985 and sentenced to 25 years in prison. He leaked classified information regarding naval warfare technologies to the USSR and attempted to recruit others to do the same.

However, other individuals have been tried under the Espionage Act for the unauthorized transfer of information to individuals or media outlets. Samuel Morison was a Naval Intelligence Analyst who leaked satellite pictures of a Soviet aircraft carrier. Morison argued that the release of the information was protected under the First Amendment. However, the Supreme Court ruled that he had violated the Espionage Act. Morison was sentenced to 2 years in prison but was pardoned in 2001.  

More recently, Edward Sowden, a government employee and contractor, released classified information about government surveillance programs and was charged under the Espionage Act. Another recent high-profile violation of the Espionage Act involves a 21-year-old airman in the Massachusetts National Guard named Jack Teixiera. Teixeira is currently charged with two counts under the Espionage Act for sharing classified information in an online forum.

Additionally, government employees have also been charged for the mishandling of classified information. For example, retired General and CIA Director David Petraeus accepted a plea deal for a misdemeanor conviction and a fine for sharing classified information with a biographer. There have been more than a dozen similar cases over the last decade, many of which resulted in a prison sentence.

Historically, prosecutions under the Espionage Act have focused on the people who hold or have released classified information without permission. However, individuals or organizations that publish classified information are also subject to prosecution under the Espionage Act. The threat of prosecution has been used in the past to persuade reporters and editors to postpone the publication of some stories or to withhold certain details.  

What are standardized tests? Why do students take them?

Standardized tests are assessments administered to students and adults under controlled and regulated conditions to assess an individual’s knowledge, skills, and aptitude. These tests require all test takers to answer the same or selected questions from a bank of possible questions. These tests also have a standard manner of scoring that allows for scores/performances to be compared to the other individuals who took the same test.

As the figure below shows, standardized tests consume a significant portion of the school year – for high school students, about ten days a year out of a total school year of about 180 days. This estimate excludes additional class time to prepare for the exam.

‍

Standardized testing was created for two primary reasons: to provide a quantitative measure of a student’s academic performance and to evaluate the performance of teachers, schools, and school districts. Using these tests helps establish a consistent benchmark for the level of achievement that should be met at each grade level, ensuring the same criteria are used for all students. In this way, standardized tests can be used to rank students for assignment to honors classes or to flag students who might benefit from additional resources.  

To evaluate the performance of teachers, schools, and school districts, individual test results are averaged to measure overall student performance. The goal is to identify which schools or teachers are especially effective in helping students learn. These results can be used to identify effective teaching techniques and learning environments that can be transferred to other schools. The other goal is incentivizing teachers and administrators to teach well, especially if school funding and teacher pay are tied to test results.

What is the federal government’s role in standardized tests?

At the federal level, the U.S. Department of Education collects standardized test data and gives each state a “report card” on the academic performance of local schools. Congress mandates that this report card be issued every two years for each state. The state governments each choose the specific assessment to be administered in reading, math, and science, meaning that the standardized tests used in a particular year vary across states. Local school districts must administer these tests to receive federal education funding. The results of these tests are aggregated into a “state report card” by the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Underperforming schools can lose some federal education funding.  

Do mandated standardized tests work as intended?

The evidence is mixed. One problem is that federal policies designed to reward well-performing schools do not provide strong incentives to teachers and administrators. The federal government provides about 8% of K-12 school funding, so the consequences of cutting this assistance are small. In any case, cutting funding for a school with problematic test results may make it harder for them to hire good teachers, modify curriculums, and enhance their learning environments to improve test results.

The incentives are also small at the state level. The largest source of school funding in most districts is local property taxes. Thus, state governments have only modest rewards and punishments they can use in response to test results. Some states tie standardized test results to teacher pay so that teachers with high-performing students receive bonuses. Research on the effects of incentive-based teacher pay suggests connecting teacher pay to standardized test performance can result in higher test scores.

At the same time, there are two critiques of using standardized tests in this way. One is that standardized tests may not be a good measurement of student performance, progress, or gaps in knowledge. If so, we may not be measuring actual achievement by working to improve standardized test scores. Other critics contend that standardized tests are neither objective nor accurate as non-academic factors, including access to health care, food insecurity, or poverty-related stress, can negatively impact test performance. As a result, schools with a disproportionate number of poor students may be penalized for low test scores, even though teachers are doing a good job and students are learning.  

An additional problem is a reliance on standardized tests to distribute funding or teacher bonuses may lead teachers to curve test scores or “teach to the test” – which may emphasize a narrow range of test-taking skills, devote excessive class time to practice exams and de-emphasize important areas of knowledge that are not included on the standardized tests. In extreme cases, some teachers and administrators have even been convicted for stealing test answers and distributing them to their students.

‍

What is vocational education?

Vocational education, also known as technical education, often offers a direct pathway to a career, seeking to equip students with practical skills, knowledge, and formative experiences necessary to succeed in a specific trade, craft, or profession. This approach is distinct from classroom instruction focusing on subjects such as reading, writing, mathematics, and science. Many students use vocational education to immediately enter the workforce when they graduate from high school.

At the secondary level, high schools offer curricular programs designed to teach skills such as automotive repair or information technology. At the postsecondary level, technical institutes, community colleges, and trade schools often provide vocational education. These institutions offer programs in fields such as healthcare, computer technology, food service, and skilled trades like electrical wiring or plumbing. Many vocational education programs also require students to have work experience in their field before being certified.

Most programs offer a combination of academic instruction and hands-on training in various fields. Some schools integrate vocational education throughout the curriculum so that most or all students receive academic and vocational training, helping them transition from school to work.  

Why pursue vocational education?  

Some individuals are drawn to vocational education because they are interested in a specific hands-on field. In addition, vocational training programs offer a direct pathway to employment. These programs often provide hands-on training and practical skills directly applicable to specific jobs. For others, the appeal of vocational education lies in its focus on practical skills and its orientation towards work rather than study. This approach can be particularly appealing to individuals who are not interested in traditional academic education. Additionally, many students do not have the academic or financial capability to attend a four-year college. Vocational school serves as an alternative that provides a stable career option.

An additional factor is that students pursuing vocational education can avoid taking on debt to pursue a four-year college degree. Data from the National Center For Education Statistics shows that the average graduate from a private college has about $8000 in debt – because only a fraction of graduates have debt, the average debt of those who take out student loans is considerably higher, particularly for careers involving graduate degrees. By completing a free vocational training program in high school, students can avoid these costs. Even if loans are used to pursue vocational education as a post-secondary option, these debts are likely to be lower because vocational training programs are shorter than a traditional four-year degree.

Does vocational education work?

Research has shown that individuals who decide not to pursue a traditional university degree program and complete vocational education programs have higher employment rates and earn higher wages than those who go into a specific trade out of high school and do not complete a vocational education program. These benefits accrue to students who complete programs that lead to employment in skilled trades (electrician, plumber, carpenter) or information technology.

Starting salaries for skilled trades are close to the average for entry-level positions requiring a college degree. The first chart uses data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to show average salaries for different degrees. As you can see, the average salary for jobs requiring a bachelor’s degree is about $70,000, and for an associate’s degree, it is about $51,000.

‍

The second figure also draws on BLS data to show average entry salaries for graduates of selected vocational training programs. These range from a low of about $47,000 for auto mechanics to over $70,000 for an aircraft mechanic. Thus, vocational training provides comparable salaries to the average bachelor’s degree without the cost and time commitment of a college education.  

‍

What are the drawbacks of vocational education?

One of the main criticisms of vocational programs is that they track students into a career at an early age. Such tracking can limit the future opportunities available to these students and make it difficult for them to change careers later in life. Critics also argue that vocational education can perpetuate social inequality by steering disadvantaged students into potentially lower-paying jobs.

A second critique is that vocational curricula are not always up-to-date with the rapidly changing labor market needs. This issue is particularly true in fields like computing, where new developments can quickly render existing skills and knowledge obsolete. Critics also argue that vocational education can lead to a narrow focus on specific job skills at the expense of broader academic, cognitive, and business skills, like accounting, finance, and operations, that can help support an individual managing or owning a successful business in the trades. Others, however, suggest that these skills can be learned while working in the business itself.

Are there new models for vocational education?

One new approach to vocational education is the integration of work-based learning into vocational programs. Work-based learning is when individuals act as apprentices to learn skills on the job. This approach provides students with real-world experiences that complement their classroom learning and help recruit needed talent from trade businesses looking to employ smart, motivated, and hard-working individuals who simply decided that taking a traditional college degree path wasn’t for them. Another new approach relies on online learning platforms or advanced technologies like virtual reality.

‍

What does a “right to privacy” mean?

In the words of Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandies, the idea of a “right to privacy” is the right to be “left alone” by the government. The legal questions around the Constitutional protection of the right to privacy in the United States center on how much privacy citizens are afforded from government intervention and where our ‘zones of privacy’ extend.

There are two primary categories: the privacy of personal information and the privacy of autonomy in decisions made within some personal contexts. Legal scholars approach these categories by thinking about two concepts: privacy of tangible and physical space and privacy of the intangible world of personal decisions and thoughts.

What is the constitutional basis for the right to privacy?

The Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to privacy, although its themes appear in many of the Constitutional Amendments. The 1st Amendment protects freedom of association. The 3rd Amendment protects against the government using personal homes as lodging for soldiers during peacetime. The 4th Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures provides protection against government overreach into our personal spaces. Similarly, the Due Process clauses in the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution provide protection against undue government interference in our personal lives. Finally, the 9th Amendment’s emphasis on how the Constitution’s guarantees are not limited to the rights that are specifically spelled out.  

How has the right to privacy evolved?

The right to information privacy was first articulated by Brandeis and Warren in 1890 when an exciting but potentially invasive technology was becoming widely used – the camera. As the figure shows, privacy rights have been refined by many Supreme Court decisions from the 1940s up to the present day. In particular, privacy rights were clarified in the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut, where the Court ruled that marital decisions like the use of contraceptives are considered private and legally protected by the Constitution and could not be made illegal by state or federal laws.

In 1973, privacy rights were extended to decisions of pregnancy termination in the Roe v. Wade decision, where the Court ruled against a Texas law prohibiting abortion. The 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling allowed states to make abortion illegal at any stage of pregnancy on the basis that abortion is neither a “fundamental right” nor is it “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition.” Even so, the concept of a right to privacy remains.  

While privacy rights are usually discussed in terms of the Griswold and Row decisions, the figure below shows that the Supreme Court has mentioned privacy rights in hundreds of cases over the last 60 years. These cases deal with issues such as acceptable clothing in the workplace and at schools as well as the right to die and mandatory school attendance.  

‍

Does the right to privacy cover personal information?

To some extent. On one hand, while publishing personal information could be considered an invasion of an individual’s privacy, the Supreme Court has regularly supported the freedom of the press over the right to privacy, when the information is publicly available and legally obtained.

On the other hand, several federal laws protect individuals’ private information from public release in order to protect individual privacy. The federal Privacy Act of 1974 set standards for and prohibited the release of private information about an individual, like social security numbers or health information, by a federal agency. On the other hand, the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 expanded law enforcement’s legal search and seizure activities in order to protect national security. These include “sneak and peek” search warrants, which allow law enforcement to side-step normal Fourth Amendment procedures.

What are the limits on privacy rights?

It is important to understand that the right to privacy extends only to interference by the government rather than from private companies. Today, private companies primarily collect and manage private data, and attempts to extend the right to privacy into this sector have been limited. For example, federal law protects the privacy of some personal information, like private health information, but is not all-inclusive.

Moreover, while Americans’ health data is given additional protections, there are limits on the right to privacy here as well. Mental health professionals, for example, are obligated to report to law enforcement or other authorities on clients who they believe are a danger to themselves or others.  

Where did the Equal Protection Clause come from? What does it say?

The Equal Protection Clause is found in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. It states that states cannot “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 as a legal response to how state law should treat newly freed slaves. Equal Protection means that federal and state governments cannot discriminate against individuals based on factors such as their race, sex, nation of origin, or disability status. A government agency, for example, cannot decide against hiring an individual just because they are a woman, or because they are black, or young. The discrimination could be explicit, like a law stating that schools should be separated by racial group, or implicit, like the action of a zoning commission denying a zone change request because of fear of racial integration.

Who is protected under the Equal Protection Clause?

Under the language of the Amendment, anyone has the legal right to claim that they have been discriminated against by the government. This is sometimes called the “class of one” doctrine – an individual might have a unique situation that meets the tests for a ruling in favor of their case under the Equal Protection Clause.

The fact that an individual or group claims to have been treated unfairly does not mean discrimination has occurred. A hiring decision, for example, may have been entirely based on an individual’s qualifications and experience. And even if discrimination occurs, an individual or group must be able to prove that protecting their rights is more important than the end goal of the government policy that they claim violates their right.

How are equal protection claims decided?

When an equal protection claim is made, the government must justify its decision, showing that discrimination did not occur or, if it did, that there was a good enough reason for the actions. The level of justification depends on the kind of discrimination being claimed:

• In cases involving claims of discrimination based on race, ethnicity, national origin, and (under certain circumstances, religion), courts require that the government prove a compelling interest for the discriminatory policy or action to remain (often called strict scrutiny).
• For claims based on gender and sexual orientation, the government must meet a lower standard, proving an important government interest (intermediate scrutiny).
• In all other cases that do not fall into these categories, the government must prove that this policy or action was a rational way to achieve a valid interest (rational basis).

So, for example, if a group of older airline pilots sued the government for age discrimination because Federal Aviation Administration Rules mandate retirement at age 65, the case would be decided using the rational basis standard. The government would have to show a valid interest (aviation safety) and establish that mandatory retirement was a rational way to maintain safety, such as by citing studies showing that older pilots have slower reaction times and less stamina than younger pilots.  

On the other hand, if the retirement was decided under a strict scrutiny standard, the government would have to show that mandatory retirement was the only way to keep aviation safe – and would likely lose because the pilots could argue that a policy of regular testing of older pilots could accomplish the same goal.

How has the application of the Equal Protection Clause changed over time?

The standards used to interpret the Equal Protection Clause are constantly evolving as different cases are decided and as individuals with different interpretations of the Clause become judges or retire. For example, historically, racial discrimination has been interpreted to mean actions that are harmful to minorities. For example, the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision ended the “separate but equal” practice of segregated schools for whites and blacks in many states by citing the Equal Protection Clause.  

Beginning in the 1970s, a series of Court decisions centered on whether race can be used as a criterion for college admission. The most recent case was Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. (A similar case involved the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.) In both cases, a group of Asian Americans argued that policies intended to support admissions of African-American applicants to these universities had the effect of lowering admissions of Asian Americans. The Court held that using race (any race) as an admissions criterion violated the equal protection clause. In this ruling, the Court took a ‘color-blind’ approach to racial equality, arguing that equality under the law meant treatment in the same manner, regardless of historical privilege or not. Current policies that disadvantaged applicants who were not black were just as suspect as past policies that disadvantaged black applicants, even though the intent of the newer policies was to address past discrimination against blacks.

‍

What is eminent domain?

Eminent domain allows a government (federal, state, or local) to seize private property only if it can show that the taking is necessary to serve broad public interests. For example, a seizure of land is allowed only if doing so helps the government provide public goods such as railroads, highways, or schools. A common example of eminent domain is taking land to build national parks, like Yellowstone National Park. Eminent domain is used in smaller cases, such as when a local government seizes part of a person’s front yard to widen a public road for public safety.

What is the legal basis for eminent domain?

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution contains the Takings Clause, which asserts that private property can be taken for public use if the owner is given “just compensation.” The requirement for just compensation is a vital component of eminent domain. Generally, the standard is that any compensation should reflect fair market value.

Federal courts have interpreted the Takings Clause to permit the government to seize property if it can show that doing so will contribute to an increase in the general public welfare. Originally, this clause was only applied at the federal level. However, in 1987, the Supreme Court expanded the exercise of eminent domain when it ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment implied that the clause is applicable at the state and local levels.

What legal challenges have been directed at eminent domain?

A series of court cases have defined what is allowed and not allowed under eminent domain, including how to determine just compensation and what activities meet the public use requirements.  Generally, just compensation means the fair market value for the entirety of a property being seized, as well as compensation for damages to any remaining private property. The government agency involved in the decision is responsible for surveying the land and appraising the fair market value. This appraisal is then the basis for a just compensation offer. Fair market value is often determined based on the sale of similar properties. If a price cannot be agreed upon with the owner, the government agency may initiate a condemnation lawsuit, which is a procedure to settle real estate disputes. If the property owner finds the compensation estimate to be insufficient, they may challenge the estimate in court. In the 1982 Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the government must provide just compensation even if the land area is small and the land seizure will not significantly affect the owner’s economic interests.

Regarding public use, the Supreme Court has held that the government can appropriate land if it will increase general public welfare. For example, the Berman v. Parker decision (1954) permitted the District of Columbia to transfer ownership of buildings to private developers for renovation. This case held that the government can appropriate private property even if it is transferred to private individuals rather than a public agency. In Kelo v. City of New London (2005), the Supreme Court also ruled that the federal government could use eminent domain to expropriate private land for development by private individuals or companies. However, in response to the Supreme Court’s decisions, many states modified their eminent domain policies to say that private economic development was not enough to justify eminent domain.

What restrictions exist on eminent domain?

There are few restrictions on using eminent domain beyond the requirements to provide just compensation and demonstrate that seized property furthers public well-being. For example, the government has the right to seize a person’s home to build a park so long as the park furthers public welfare and the owner is paid at a fair market value.  

States are allowed to place additional restrictions on the use of eminent domain. For example, some states have established additional rules concerning processes for communicating with property owners. The California state courts have also ruled that the state must notify property owners at the beginning of the eminent domain process and present owners with an assessed land value.

What are the benefits of eminent domain?

Eminent domain has played a vital role in developing the country’s infrastructure. The takings clause has been used to facilitate the development of transportation services (including roads and railroads), supply water, and construct public buildings. For example, in United States v. Great Falls Manufacturing Company (1884), the Supreme Court allowed the state to use eminent domain to construct an aqueduct that provided several cities with drinking water. States have also used eminent domain to support urban renewal by improving underutilized or environmentally compromised land. Additionally, eminent domain has been used to support energy development, such as by allowing companies to engage in fracking or extend oil pipelines.

What are the arguments against eminent domain?

Some legal observers have argued that federal and state governments have abused their eminent domain power. Specifically, the criticism is that eminent domain is being used to transfer property from one private owner to another under the justification of improving general welfare. Moreover, the public use justification has been expanded to allow the government to take land if the seizure results in increased tax revenues or employment.

Critics have also argued that government assessments of a property’s value fail to capture its emotional or cultural significance to a community. Furthermore, eminent domain has been identified as contributing to transforming city neighborhoods from low-value to high-value real estate. Many cities have condemned the residences of low-income individuals under the economic development justification. However, the government’s assessed values of low-income, owner-occupied housing in economically prosperous communities often do not account for the difficulty of finding affordable, alternative housing in that area. The result is that low-income residents must relocate to even poorer areas of the city or out of the city completely. Additionally, some argue that just compensation should start with fair market value and then add other costs, such as relocation and litigation.

What is bureaucratic authority?

• The American bureaucracy is a wide set of federal agencies, typically housed in the executive branch, responsible for executing the policies passed by Congress. These agencies range from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to smaller agencies like the Arctic Research Commission. Decisions about implementation are made by civil servants, career government employees who are experts in their field.  
• Bureaucratic power is the influence and authority that these government agencies have to implement policies, make decisions, and carry out the functions of government. In theory, Congress could eliminate bureaucratic authority by specifying exactly what bureaucrats should do. In practice, because many details of a new policy are not well-understood at the time it is enacted by Congress, and because most bureaucrats tend to know more about the details of a policy than elected officials, bureaucrats have considerable authority over public policy.

How is bureaucratic power different from legislative power?

• The US Constitution mandates that the legislative branch (Congress) makes laws and the executive branch (the bureaucracy) implements them. However, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946 gave agencies bureaucratic discretion, or the power to develop rules and regulations that have the force of law. These rules make up the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which are enforceable just like federal statutes. For example, if Congress passes a law to promote the employment of veterans as wildfire fighters, the agency responsible for administering that law, the Department of Veterans Affairs, must determine program aspects like how to inform veterans of the program and who will be eligible.
• Bureaucratic agencies have also been granted quasi-judicial authority. The APA allows bureaucratic agencies to set up administrative courts to settle disputes about their implemented rules. These courts (sometimes called the “hidden judiciary”) are separate from the judicial court system. Approximately 2,000 administrative law judges preside over hearings like Social Security requests, immigration cases, and labor disputes. Policy can also be developed through adjudication, which is the process of settling disputes about the effect of policy through administrative courts.

What is the process used to develop regulations?

• Federal agencies interpret new laws and carry out old ones using the federal rulemaking process established by the APA in 1946. Agencies notify the public that a new rule needs to be made and provide a summary of the proposed rule. This proposed rule is then opened for public review (printed in a publication known as the Federal Register). Then anyone (citizens, lobby groups, companies) has 90 days to submit a comment on the proposed regulation. These comments are also printed in the Register. The agency then revises the proposed rule into a final rule. This final rule is published for public view. After the final rule is published, it becomes federal law.

How many regulations are developed each year?

• Major rules are rules that would have a large impact on the economy and consumers or make it more difficult for US businesses to compete with overseas businesses. Between 1997 and 2018, an average of 71 major rules were issued per year. Minor rules are rules that do not meet this threshold. Minor rules could be small adjustments to current policy. In 2018, 3,368 total rules were published.

‍

Can elected officials control the bureaucracy?

• One way for Congress to monitor the bureaucracy is by regularly monitoring the outputs and actions of agencies (‘police patrol oversight’). Alternately, Congress can set up processes by which citizens and interest groups can monitor agencies and call for Congress or the courts to address the issue (called ‘fire alarm oversight’ by scholars). This ‘fire alarm oversight’ means that monitoring the bureaucracy falls more heavily to interest groups and citizens, who alert Congress when action needs to be taken. Congress can also intervene in the rulemaking process. The 1996 Congressional Review Act gives Congress oversight over major rules, including the ability to overturn a rule. Lastly, Congress influences the bureaucracy through the federal budget. Because Congress establishes the funding for all bureaucratic agencies, they can influence policy execution by increasing or decreasing an agency’s funding for the coming year or directing how funds are spent.
• The President primarily influences the bureaucracy through the power to appoint roughly 4,000 leaders in most bureaucratic agencies. In general, presidents typically appoint individuals who align with their vision for how the bureaucracy should implement policy.

Why don’t Congress and the President eliminate bureaucratic discretion?

• Reducing bureaucratic discretion likely means reducing the value of policy experts. Although there are downsides to this delegation of authority, including potential partisan influence over policy, neither Congress nor the President has the information capacity to replace the information benefits of bureaucratic discretion. Unless Congress were to expand its staff, or gain access in some other way to resources that can provide similar expertise and knowledge to replace the policy experts in the bureaucracy, the way legislation gets implemented would likely be less informed or effective than it currently is.

What does it mean to have a federal system of government?

Federalism is a form of government that divides power between one national government and its lower governments. In the US, the national government, the 50 state governments, and the 574 federally-recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes are each sovereign governments, which means they have the authority and autonomy to govern their jurisdictions.

The US Constitution has competing clauses providing a strong national government while maintaining jurisdictional autonomy. Clauses promoting a strong national government include Article 1, Section 8, which gives Congress the authority to expand its lawmaking abilities, and the national supremacy clause (Article VI), which specifies that if there is a conflict between a state law and a national law, the national law wins.

On the other hand, the Tenth Amendment specifies that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This provision is often called reserved powers and helps to provide boundaries for the scope of the national government’s powers.  

Beyond the Constitution, federal legislation has led to changes in the relationship between the national and state governments. For example, Congress used the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to give itself authority to protect the unionization of workers within the states through the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. This interpretation expanded the ability of Congress, and therefore the federal level of government, to regulate policy issues traditionally overseen by state governments.

Article IV of the Constitution also has clauses that specify the relationship between state governments. The Privileges and Immunities Clause requires state governments to treat non-state and state residents similarly in most circumstances. Similarly, the Full Faith and Credit requires states to recognize each other’s laws. This provision means that although the requirements for getting a driver’s license may vary across the country, a license from one state is valid everywhere.  

What policy areas are governed by the states?

The states are primarily responsible for the public’s health, safety, and welfare, including education, health care policy, abortion, criminal justice systems, and social safety net programs. Before the New Deal, a series of programs, public work projects, financial reforms and regulations enacted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt between 1933 and 1939, the state governments had near complete autonomy in these areas, while the federal government focused on foreign policy, interstate commerce, and international trade.

Since the New Deal, the federal government began influencing how states administer these policy areas. The federal government solely administers Social Security and Medicare while offering some funds for education; it coordinates with states on healthcare for the poor (Medicaid); it works with states on environmental policy. Nevertheless, state policies are still influential: for example variation in state health and environmental policies could impact national average life expectancy.

How has the federal government assumed some powers within policy areas that were intended for states?

In addition to the National Supremacy Clause discussed above, Congress has often invoked the Commerce Clause to expand its influence. The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, but it has also been used to regulate policy from labor relations to food and drugs to railroads. This power has been limited since the Supreme Court’s 1995 decision in United States v. Lopez, which struck down the Gun Free School Zones Act on the rationale that gun possession is not an economic activity that can be regulated by Congress through the Commerce Clause.

Another source of federal power is granted by the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, which provides equal protection by the law for all US citizens in all states. Before this amendment, the Bill of Rights applied only to the protection of equal rights by the federal government. This amendment established that the federal government could require states to follow the Bill of Rights.

Are state governments able to defy the federal government? When do such disagreements happen?

The Constitution’s National Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Paragraph 2) puts the states in subordinate roles. Nonetheless, states have attempted to defy federal laws. In 1957, Arkansas delayed school desegregation in defiance of Brown vs. Board of Education. While it did successfully delay the implementation of the Supreme Court’s decision for some time, the episode ended with President Eisenhower sending the 101st Airborne to Little Rock’s Central High School to enforce the ruling. On the other hand, while the federal government considers marijuana an illegal “controlled substance,” 38 states allow cannabis for medical purposes, and 23 allow it for recreational purposes, in clear conflict with federal law.

How do states make policy?

States make policy through a similar process as the national government: each state has a legislative, executive, and judicial branch with similar functions and checks and balances as those at the federal level. Though state institutions are roughly similar to each other, states vary in policy-making capacity.

Some state legislatures are citizen legislatures, where legislators are in session for a short time, typically receiving little pay and have small staff. In professionalized legislatures, legislators receive higher pay, are in session nearly year-round, and typically have full-time staff. These professionalized legislatures are more responsive to constituents and generally more effective at administering the bureaucracy.  

States rely on local governments (counties, cities and towns, and school districts) to develop and implement state policies like elections, tax collection, and education. Local governments do not have independent autonomy from states. Rather, states have the ultimate authority to create or remove power from local governments. Under home rule, states can grant local governments the sole jurisdiction over certain issues within their borders.

What are the principal advantages and disadvantages of a federal system?

A federal system gives policy advocates more opportunities to change policy rather than limiting efforts to the national level. For example, green energy, abortion, or educational reform advocates focus on local, state, and national governments to identify the best venue for their goals.

The advantage of federalism is that policy work can be split up between levels of government, meaning more policy solutions can be reached than if they were handled by only one level of government. Further, citizens typically trust their local and state governments more than the federal government, and feel they can have more influence in local decision-making.

The disadvantage is that states often depend on the federal government for resources to accomplish the policy goals they are responsible for. This situation can lead to states competing against each other for limited resources. It can also lead to less effective implementation of policies than if the federal government were using its resources to implement a coordinated policy. For example, state responses to the COVID-19 pandemic were very different state by state, which led to unequal access to government resources depending on which state you lived in. Similarly, federalism might make it difficult for citizens to know who is responsible for policies and services and, therefore, find it difficult to hold a government accountable.

What is the alternative to a federal system? How many countries have each type of government?

Federal systems are relatively rare: There are only 25 federal countries worldwide (including the United States, Canada, and Germany). The more common alternative to a federal system is a unitary system in which most, if not all, the power is vested in the central or national government. 166 of the 193 United Nations Member states are unitary systems of government.

‍

What Is Due Process?

Due process rights are set out in the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Amendment stipulates that the federal government must follow due process. The Fourteenth Amendment puts the same obligation on states. The central protections of due process are that individuals are guaranteed certain liberties and, second, that the government must follow clear, transparent, and fair procedures before depriving a citizen of life, liberty, or property.  

The concept of due process traces its origins to King John’s Magna Carta, which provides that no freeman will be seized, dispossessed of his property, or harmed except “by the law of the land,” an expression that referred to customary practices of the court. The phrase “due process of law” first appeared as a substitute for the Magna Carta’s “law of the land” in a 1354 statute of King Edward III that restated some of Magna Carta’s guarantees. The due process clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution is based on these principles.  

Due process comes in two categories: procedural and substantive. Procedural due process refers to the rules that describe how government actions are carried out. For instance, as we discuss in our policy brief on eminent domain (linked in further reading), if the government wants to take a citizen’s property to build a park, they have to pay the market value for the land and allow the citizen to go to court to stop the action. Similarly, when someone is arrested, the government cannot simply put them in jail for a long time; rather, they must hold a trial and let a citizen jury or a judge determine the suspect’s guilt or innocence. Substantive due process, on the other hand, includes a range of rights, including the right to privacy, to marry (including same-sex marriage), to use contraception, and a parent’s right to make decisions about their children’s lives. Gender transition therapy, surgery, and affirmation care (both mental health and non-medical intervention) have been a recent focus of public debate related to parental rights.  

How Are Due Process Claims Decided?  

The right to due process is upheld chiefly through federal, state, and local courts. Judges protect due process by ensuring that individuals receive fair notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a fair and impartial hearing. If there is evidence that due process has not been conducted, the courts can and often will throw out an entire case. Additionally, by interpreting and applying the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the courts safeguard individuals’ due process rights.

There are limitations on due process. This right does not mean the government cannot do things citizens oppose. For example, as we discuss in our Eminent Domain Brief, the government can confiscate a citizen’s property if it provides fair market compensation and can show that doing so serves a public purpose. In addition, the courts have acknowledged that certain rights are not absolute and may be restricted under specific circumstances. For example, while police officers are required to advise suspects of their right to remain silent and to have a lawyer present during questioning (the so-called Miranda rights), the courts have allowed a public safety exception, where law enforcement may question a suspect without informing them of their rights when there is an imminent danger to public safety.

What Are The Drawbacks To Due Process?

One notable drawback is the potential for longer than expected and expensive legal proceedings. Due process involves extended legal procedures, often resulting in delays and increased costs for individuals and for the government. Another drawback arises from inconsistency in the application of due process. Different courts or adjudicatory bodies may interpret and apply due process principles in varying ways, leading to inconsistent outcomes. Such inconsistency can erode public trust in the fairness of the legal system.

Additionally, the emphasis on procedural fairness in due process sometimes overshadows substantive justice. The procedural rules may require courts to focus on formalities and technicalities rather than addressing the underlying merits of a case. For instance, a person accused of a crime might be acquitted due to a procedural error, even if there is compelling evidence of guilt.

Is Due Process A Right In Other Countries?

Due process exists in most countries, although the procedural rights given to individuals and the specific rights protected under substantive due process vary across nations. In some countries, such as China and North Korea, due process is guaranteed by constitutions but does not exist.

‍

One way to measure the strength of due process rights in a country is with the V-Dem (Varieties of Democracy) Liberal Democracy scale. Each country is assigned a value between 0 and 1 (higher means more due process) based on the judgment of expert scholars. The figure above shows the due process scale values for members of the G7 (Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, United Kingdom, and the United States), three authoritarian states (China, North Korea, and Russia), and three Scandinavian countries (Finland, Norway, and Sweden). As the figure shows, the G7 nations have roughly the same due process rights, with the Scandinavian countries somewhat higher and the authoritarian countries much lower.  

‍

How Much Can The Government Regulate The Media?

The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of the press, meaning that the government cannot stop the media from reporting a story except under very special circumstances discussed below. However, the government can regulate media organizations as businesses, particularly broadcast media, who require a license to use a particular frequency to transmit their programming.  

In the United States, the allocation and monitoring of frequencies is handled by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Radio, television, and satellite stations must apply for a permit to broadcast from the FCC and reapply every four years.

As part of its licensing agreement, a broadcast station is required to abide by certain rules, including those covering local community issues and concerns. In addition, the FCC requires television and radio news providers to provide equal airtime to opposing major-party political candidates. FCC rules make it illegal for broadcast news providers to censor political ads paid for by political candidates. According to regulation, the FCC also cannot charge political candidates more for an advertisement than they charge a non-political candidate customer. These rules exist with the intent that a station cannot choose one candidate or side of the aisle to air and ignore the other.

Are Internet News Sources Regulated The Same Way As Print and Broadcast Media?

Digital news sources are not regulated by the FCC because they do not use public airwaves. Several laws exist to regulate content online, but intermediaries, like Google or Twitter, usually cannot be held liable for content published or purveyed on their platforms. For more details, see our policy brief on Section 230, linked in the Further Reading section.

What Are The Limits On Media Ownership?

Ownership of broadcast companies is also restricted by the FCC to increase the number of news sources available to the public. The FCC limits cross-ownership of more than two broadcast television organizations in the same market. These limits are designed to maintain multiple sources of news in the same region so that local, state, and national news is not just available from one source. Broadcast news companies can broadcast to up to 39% of the nation’s households among their combined news stations.

Even with these limits, ownership of TV and radio stations is highly concentrated. Five national companies, Sinclair, Nexstar, Gray, Tegna, and Tribune, own nearly forty percent of all local TV stations, and the percentage is increasing yearly. Of these, Sinclair network stations alone reach nearly 40% of Americans. These companies are often called “network news” organizations because one company owns a network of individual local stations that broadcast both local and national news. In 2018, the FCC removed a rule that said that all local television, cable, and radio stations had to have a main studio located in or near the area the station serves. This made it easier for national conglomerates to buy local news stations and develop programming at a single central studio.

Similar concentration levels exist for newspapers: in 2021, seven companies owned 57% of daily newspapers. Some broadcast companies also own newspapers.  

Does Ownership Matter?

In a 2019 study of 743 local television news stations across the country, researchers found that as local television stations were purchased by right-leaning national networks, the news they covered became more right-slanted than those that remained locally-owned. Network-owned stations also focused more on national rather than local news. Similarly, a 2010 study of daily newspapers found that the firm that owned a newspaper impacted the ideological slant of that newspaper’s reporting.

When Can The Government Stop Publication Of A Story?

The idea that the government could prevent publication or broadcast of a story is called “prior restraint.” A series of Supreme Court decisions have determined that prior restraint is allowable, but only under very limited circumstances. One of the most prominent cases in this area was the leak of the Pentagon Papers (a series of classified reviews of Vietnam War policy) to the New York Times and Washington Post by Defense Department contractor Daniel Ellsberg in 1971. The United States government sued the two newspapers to stop them from publishing the papers. The Supreme Court decided that freedom of the press was more important to the public interest than the government’s proof that publishing the papers would put the nation at risk in this case. This decision set the high burden of proof precedent in today’s prior restraint cases.

Can a Media Source Be Held Liable For What They Publish?

Freedom of the press and the high bar for prior restraint does not mean that news organizations cannot be held liable for their stories. For example, the US government can take legal action against a news media company that has published classified information. News organizations can also be sued for libel (defamation). However, the legal standard for public figures, including elected officials (that a news organization acted with “actual malice”) is difficult to prove.

What Informal Means Do Politicians Have To Control Media Coverage?

Public officials can attempt to privately coerce media organizations to shape news coverage even when no formal regulations exist. Called jawboning, this can be done by threatening regulation or action against a company if they do not comply with the informal request or by promising access to a future story in return for favorable coverage

‍

What Is The Digital Divide and Why Does It Matter?  

The digital divide is usually defined as whether an individual has a broadband (high-speed) internet connection in their home or owns a smartphone. These devices are necessary to fully access the modern Internet and use it to learn about public policy, read and watch news stories, buy and sell things, even find a job or apply for government benefits.  

The digital divide disproportionately impacts lower-income families and those with fewer educational resources, impeding access to information, economic opportunities, and personal growth. These households often face a lack of reliable internet access. Consequently, children struggle to complete school assignments and gain necessary digital literacy skills, while adults encounter barriers to job opportunities, healthcare information, and government services.

Low-income, homebound older adults show a significant internet usage gap compared to the general population, influenced by factors like exposure, affordability, medical conditions, and disabilities. Advanced digital skills are increasingly necessary for older adults to access essential services, such as the electronic market for social services and health care. The COVID-19 pandemic has amplified these disparities, making remote work, distance learning, and telehealth services essential, thereby exacerbating the challenges faced by those without reliable internet access.

How Does Internet Access Vary Across The United States?

In 2021, about 77% of adults living in urban areas and 79% in suburban areas reported having a broadband internet connection at home, compared to 72% of those in rural areas. This digital divide in rural and urban America is lower than in the past as rural areas have closed the gap. Internet access in rural areas has increased substantially since 2016, when only 63% of rural residents reported having home broadband. However, some differences remain due to the higher cost of infrastructure investment in rural areas and lower population densities, making it less profitable for companies to provide broadband services.

The digital divide is larger for age, income, education, and race. For example, 63% of seniors (65 or older) reported home broadband access compared to 88% of adults aged 30-49 and 95% of those between 18-29.

Regarding income, over 92% of households earning $75,000 annually have home broadband, in contrast to 56% of those earning less than $30,000. Those earning less than $30,000 are also less likely to have a smartphone; 76% of people who make less than $30,000 have smartphones, as opposed to 96% of those who make $75,000 or more. The figure below shows how these disparities have evolved over time.

‍

The digital divide for education levels is also substantial. In 2021, over 94% of those with a college education had broadband access compared to only 59% for those with a high school education or lower.  

Racial disparities are also evident in these surveys, with 79% of white adults, 71% of Black adults, and 66% of Hispanic adults having home broadband. Additionally, white adults are over 10% more likely to have a computer or laptop than Black or Hispanic adults. Notably, there is no significant difference in smartphone ownership between racial groups.

What Efforts Have Been Made To Narrow The Digital Divide?  

Federal and state governments have launched numerous initiatives to bridge the digital divide. One of the key efforts at the federal level is the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) initiated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Initially funded with over four billion dollars, BTOP aims to increase broadband access nationwide, particularly in unserved and underserved areas. Another significant FCC program, the Connect America Fund (CAF), receives annual funding of approximately $4.5 billion to expand access to voice and broadband services in regions where they are unavailable. The outcomes indicate these programs have had a positive impact on rural areas. Research on the CAF Phase-II suggests the program has had an overall positive effect on employment rates. However, the impact of these programs varies substantially by region, indicating that while progress has been made, the digital divide remains a complex issue that is influenced by a variety of regional and local factors.

Is The Digital Divide Larger Or Smaller In Other Countries?

About two-thirds of the world’s population uses the internet. Europe has the highest internet use with 89% of the public having access, followed by America and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), former Soviet states in Eurasia. The lowest internet usage is in Africa, at 40%. The digital divide varies among industrialized countries due to economic, demographic, and infrastructure factors. For instance, countries like South Korea and Sweden, with advanced digital infrastructure, have near-universal internet accessibility.

‍

The Formal Sources Of Presidential Power: Constitutional And Statutory

The formal powers of the president are constitutional, statutory, or a combination of both. Constitutional powers are derived from the provisions of the Constitution. An example of a constitutional power is the President’s role in the legislative process. After both Houses of Congress enact a law, the President is given the option of signing the law (in which case it goes into effect) or vetoing it. If the President issues a veto, the law is dead unless the House and Senate re-enact it by 2/3rds majorities.  

The Constitution also makes the President Commander in Chief of America’s armed forces. However, Congresses’ control of the federal budget gives them some influence over military operations, and the War Powers Act (enacted in 1974) gives congressional majorities the power to force the President to withdraw American forces from combat. And, while the President can order secret military operations without warning Congress, current law requires the President to promptly inform congressional leadership about these operations.

The Constitution’s vesting clause makes the President the head of government and the head of state. The head of government is the leader of the executive branch, and the head of state is the symbolic and political representative of the country. The constitution also gives the President the administration of the executive branch, which includes the cabinet. The President also has the power to grant pardons.

The President’s statutory powers are derived from laws enacted by Congress. One such presidential power is the ability to issue orders to declassify documents, plans, and other information. Legislation also gives the President the authority to declare national emergencies. This power was used during the COVID pandemic to order national lockdowns and compel protective equipment manufacturers to increase production rates.

Other statutory powers include the implementation of laws, nominations and appointments, and the negotiations of treaties and executive agreements. The President can appoint individuals to about 8,000 positions, including high-level positions like Supreme Court Justices and agency heads. However, many of these appointments require Senate approval. Additionally, in response to the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973 to limit the President’s power to get the country involved in wars. The President often avoids Senate approval and consent by entering into executive agreements, which do not require Senate approval like a treaty. The President’s statutory power has mostly grown over time, usually because of wars or times of emergency.

What Are Executive Orders?

An executive order is a declaration by the President that has the effect of law. Executive orders enable the President to set policy without going through Congress. However, Congress can reverse an executive order by enacting appropriate legislation.

Most executive orders deal with relatively minor matters, such as allowing federal employees to work a half-day on the day before Christmas. As the figure below shows, all Presidents issue numerous executive orders.

‍

However, some executive orders implement sweeping policy changes. For example, in 2014, President Obama used an executive order to establish the DACA (Deferred Actions for Childhood Arrivals) program that allowed undocumented individuals brought to the United States as children by their parents to obtain work permits and freedom from deportation. Similarly, in 2017, President Trump issued an executive order to limit travel to the United States from six predominantly-Muslim countries.

What Are The President’s Informal Or Unwritten Powers?

Although the Constitution sets out the responsibilities of each branch, the ambiguity of the text has allowed for the expansion of presidential powers. For example, the Constitution does not refer to unilateral power. Still, Article II endows the President with “executive power” and the responsibility of ensuring that “laws be faithfully executed.” This vagueness has allowed Presidents to execute unilateral powers in various circumstances.  

The use of unilateral, unwritten powers is not unique to any President. All U.S. Presidents have issued at least one executive order except for William Henry Harrison, who died in office before he could. President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 was an executive order that declared all enslaved people free in the rebellious states. In 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an executive order that forced people of Japanese heritage in the Western states into internment camps during WWII. In 1948, President Truman used executive powers to desegregate the military. The use of unilateral action is not unique to any party either. In recent history, President George W. Bush used an executive order to create the Department of Homeland Security in response to the 9/11 attacks, and as mentioned earlier, President Obama used an executive order to create DACA to protect unauthorized immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children from being deported. President Biden has issued nearly as many executive orders as President Trump had at this point in his presidency.

Similarly, while the President requires the approval of the Senate to enter international treaties, they can unilaterally enter international “agreements” that have arguably the same effect as a treaty. For example, while the United States currently complies with the requirements of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, this treaty has never been submitted to the Senate for approval.  As a result, each new President can decide whether to respect or ignore the agreement.    

What Are The Constraints On Presidential Power?

This brief describes the broad extent of power given to America’s Presidents. However, Presidents are not Kings or Queens. Their authority is limited in multiple ways, from the need for congressional action to implement presidential decisions, the ability of other branches of government to constrain or veto presidential initiatives, and the fact that the President holds their power only after winning an election.

Congressional consent is needed most clearly when a presidential decision requires funding to take effect. A President might commit the United States to land people on Mars, but the program will only come into being if members of Congress enact sufficient funding for it.

Members of Congress can also override presidential vetoes of enacted legislation, as well as the ability to pass resolutions that reverse a President’s executive orders or other unilateral actions. Such events are relatively rare, but that is because Presidents consider how Congress will react to different decisions and generally avoid making decisions that members of Congress will overturn.

Presidential actions can also be overturned by action in the federal courts. For example, in June 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration could not end the Obama-era DACA policy mentioned earlier. (For more details, see our policy brief on Judicial Powers linked in the Additional Reading section.)

The final check on presidential action is public opinion. Particularly in their first term, Presidents are keenly aware of the need to maintain and build public support as they seek reelection. In their second terms, public opinion remains important as Presidents work to ensure that their party controls the presidency after their departure.  

What is the primary power of the federal judiciary?

The core power of the federal judiciary is vested in judicial review. This authority allows courts to determine the constitutionality of actions taken by the executive and legislative branches. A person or group can sue Congress or the President if they believe either has overstepped their constitutional authority or infringed on the public’s constitutional rights. After such a case has moved up through the federal judicial system (through appeals), the losing party may submit a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) asking them to hear the case. If four of the nine justices approve the writ, the case will be heard. Once SCOTUS has made a decision, that decision is the law of the land in the United States.

Why does judicial review exist?

The principle of judicial review acts as a protective mechanism for constitutional rights and sustains a system of checks and balances within the government. The primary objective is to ensure that neither the executive nor the legislative branches of government surpass their constitutional boundaries or infringe upon individual liberties. The courts also use judicial review to decide whether individual rights are infringed by businesses, people, and other organizations. Of note, the power of judicial review is not granted to the courts in the Constitution. Rather, the Supreme Court gave itself the unique power to decide the constitutionality of laws in the 1803 Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison. Outgoing President John Adams appointed several judges in an attempt to pack the courts, or in other words increase the number of justices on a court in an attempt to sway the outcome of decisions, before his political rival Thomas Jefferson took office. When Jefferson took office, he ordered Secretary of State James Madison not to deliver the commissions. One of the appointees, William Marbury, sued Madison for not delivering his appointment. Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in favor of Madison and, in his opinion, ruled the law unconstitutional, granting the courts the power of judicial review. Since this decision 220 years ago, the power of judicial review has not been contested.

How often does a federal court decide a law is unconstitutional?

The frequency with which a federal court declares a law unconstitutional fluctuates considerably. This variability is influenced by several factors, including changes in societal values, shifts in the political climate, alterations in the composition of the judiciary, and the number of cases questioning the constitutionality of laws. Nearly all SCOTUS decisions set a precedent that future courts must use to interpret future cases. Such precedents are rarely overturned. Since 1789, only 0.5% of SCOTUS opinions have been reversed. The tendency to reverse precedents has slightly increased since 1953 but is still below 1% of all decisions.

SCOTUS did not wield the power of judicial review as heavily early in the court’s history, focusing instead on building legitimacy over time. The court has since become more willing to exercise this power, although the use of judicial review is still relatively rare. For instance, SCOTUS has invalidated acts of Congress on average around once a year since 1789. SCOTUS is even less likely to overrule an executive action.

What are the limits of judicial review?

The limits on judicial review include the hierarchical structure of the judicial system, the appeals process, and the judge appointment procedure. The hierarchical structure of the system and the requirement for cases to pass through multiple layers of review can impose practical restrictions on challenging laws and policies. Going through multiple layers of legal challenges takes a lot of time and resources. It can be difficult for someone to navigate this process and take the time necessary to go through the system.

Additionally, the appointment process for judges can shape the ideological composition of the judiciary and impact the exercise of judicial review. The ideological or partisan preferences of judges may shape their approach to constitutional cases. Furthermore, delays or challenges in filling vacancies on the bench can affect the judiciary’s ability to address constitutional issues in a timely fashion. These limits highlight the importance of considering the structural and procedural aspects of the judicial system when examining the scope and effectiveness of judicial review.

Moreover, the executive and legislative branches of government can check the judiciary’s power. The President is responsible for nominating judges, and the Senate must confirm the President’s nominees. The congressional checks on the court can be broken into two categories: court curbing and decision reversals. Court curbing is when Congress passes legislation attempting to change the structure or functioning of the Supreme Court, such as by adding judgeships, changing appropriations, or other attempts to affect the court in this way. Decision reversals are used to modify the legal result or impact of specific decisions. Both of these checks are rare, but decision reversals are most common between the two and have increased along with SCOTUS scrutiny of acts of Congress. Finally, Congress has the power to impeach and remove judges. Congress has only impeached 15 federal judges over time, convicting 8 of them. Only one Supreme Court Justice (Samuel Chase) was impeached (in 1805), but he was not convicted.

In the Federalist Papers, Founding Father Alexander Hamilton referred to the Courts as the weakest branch of government. What did he mean?

In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote that there was little to fear from the judicial branch, calling it the weakest branch because it had no force of will. Hamilton argued that the judicial branch only has the power to judge and must rely on the other two branches to adhere to any judgments. Hamilton highlights the executive’s power of the sword and the legislature’s power of the purse, pointing out the lack of either in the judiciary. Further, James Madison argued in Federalist 51 that the legislative branch is the dominant branch in a Republic. The judiciary relies on the other branches’ cooperation and the public’s respect for its decisions.

Do other countries have similar judicial systems?

Many countries have courts that perform judicial review. For instance, Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court can review legal acts. The world’s most prominent legal systems are civil and common law. The former relies on a comprehensive legal code containing all country laws. This system is used by most of Europe and South America. The latter relies on the precedents established by the courts or the legislatures for future decision-making. The United States, Great Britain, and Australia all use the common law systems.

‍

How many news sources does the average American regularly consult for information about government and public policy?

The average American watches over four hours of television daily. In 2020, over 15% of the American electorate watched an average of 8 hours or more of MSNBC, CNN, or Fox News per month.  Over 1 in 4 Americans consume at least 1 hour of partisan media a month, which is roughly equivalent to 30 separate 30-second TV commercials per week. The average partisan visits about 3 different online news sources a week.

What media sources are widely-used? Which ones are less-used?

Major broadcast and cable news are still the most widely used sources of political information. A YouGov poll in 2022 found that 39% of U.S. adults used either cable or broadcast news, including their websites, for political news. The next highest were social media at 32% and national newspapers, including their websites, at 23%. News consumption across platforms indicate print and radio are the least used platforms.

‍

Over the past few decades, news media has shifted from primarily print and broadcast productions to primarily digital platforms. Digital media consists of both news websites and apps as well as social media platforms. 86% of adults say they get news on digital devices, more so than TV, radio, or print. While social media is a significant source of digital news, two-thirds of adults say they also access news websites, news apps, and search engines.

The rise of digital media has generated different modes of behavior across age cohorts. Over 71% of young adults aged 18-29 consume news information primarily through digital devices compared to only 48% of those aged 65 and above. Moreover, the younger cohort behaves differently when online.

While most age groups utilize news websites to obtain information, younger Americans (ages 18-29) are more likely to use social media for political news information rather than other digital sources like news websites, search engines, and podcasts. 42% of young adults use social media as their main source of information whereas only 28% of young adults utilize actual online news websites. Among the users of online news sites, Americans visited Fox News and CNN the most with 16% and 12% respectively of US adults citing those two media moguls as their primary source of information.

How much does the public trust the media?

Americans expressed doubts about the media or “the press” even before the days of social media. Trust in media institutions as a whole has dramatically decreased over the past 50 years. In fact, for the first time since 1972, the percentage of respondents who have a great deal or fair amount of trust in mass media is lower than the percentage with no trust at all in mass media. Trust in mass media is 34% among Americans, while those with no trust at all climbed to 38% in 2022.

‍

Trust in the media differs by partisanship. Republican trust in the media plummeted to new lows during the 2016 election, while Democrat trust simultaneously reached new heights. Trust has remained about the same for the two parties since, but independents have experienced declines since 2018.  

Additionally, U.S. adults under the age of 30 now trust information they gather from social media sites almost as much as from national news outlets. The trust in social media sites is significantly lower among every other age group. Local news is the most trusted news source among all age groups.

Do most Americans seek out a wide range of news sources, or only those they are likely to agree with?

Americans are increasingly consuming partisan news. Fox News and CNN are the most cited sources of political media by Americans. Additionally, few Americans consume news that crosses with the other political opinion, meaning they are more comfortable with their own partisan echo chambers. For example, someone who watches MSNBC will not likely watch Fox News and vice versa. However, both Republicans and Democrats split their news consumption between the extreme of their political spectrum and moderate, mainstream sources. This means partisans also engage in non-partisan news.

The strength of an individual’s partisanship influences their motivation to engage the media. Strong partisans are more motivated to seek out political information, despite its possible skew, than weaker partisans. The former also prioritize consuming political media over entertainment-based media. One implication of this trend is that the media is not as responsible for producing partisans as some assume; strong partisans seek out aligned media, not the other way around. Additionally, strong partisans are more likely to consume news when their preferred side seems to benefit from an event.

What are the differences in the news consumption habits of Republicans and Democrats?  

Both sides consume biased news information. However, studies have found that democrats lean on social media more than republicans with 55% of the former consuming information from social media compared to 40% of the latter. More specifically, democrats access social media for political news at a higher rate than Republicans; although, the younger age of the average democratic voter may explain some of this variation as younger people are more likely to use social media for news regardless of party.  

Over 93% of individuals whose main news source is Fox News identify as a Republican. Similarly, nearly 95% of those who rely on MSNBC identify as a Democrat. The partisans on both sides selectively consume news that aligns with their views, cutting out any news from the other party. One significant difference is that Democrats seek news from a wider array of mainstream news sources, such as MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, and NPR. In contrast, Republicans largely rely on a single mainstream news source, Fox News. This difference, however, may be tied to the programming of many mainstream news sources as they tend to share political views which slant left-leaning towards Democrats. The low levels of trust in traditional media sources, primarily with conservatives, may have likely contributed to the increasing number of alternative, hyperpartisan news outlets such as Brietbart and the Daily Wire. In fact, the United States has the largest number of right-wing online-only news sources.

‍

Nielsen ratings have indicated that following the departure of Tucker Carlson from Fox News, far-right conservative cable news networks such as One America News and Newsmax have experienced significant increases in viewership. Fox News is still the overall leader in viewership, but it has dropped among the 25-54 age demographic. Immediately following Carlson’s departure, Fox fell below both CNN and MSNBC for that demographic for their 8 o’clock primetime hour that Carlson used to hold. Meanwhile Newsmax had an audience growth for the 8 o’clock hour of about 25% from the same time the previous week. While Fox News is still the overwhelming favorite cable news source among Republicans, there has been significant growth in alternative far-right news outlets. There may be consequences for the availability of reliable information for both Republicans and Democrats, especially considering that an uptick in “fake news” was consumed by both parties during the 2016 election.

Over the last generation, the number and variety of media sources has greatly expanded. How have Americans responded to this change?

One benefit of social media is that it provides short and quick anecdotes about complex issues. However, although social media has made information more accessible, it has also oversaturated the market with misinformation. Moreover, social media posts are often not able to portray the complexity of current political issues due to character/word length and image count restrictions, meaning that critical details may be lost or purposely not included.

Podcasts are another growing area for media consumption. Much like social media, podcasts have risen in popularity over the last decade. Almost half of Americans have listened to a podcast in the last year and 20% say they listen to a podcast every day. Most podcast listeners report learning about some news from podcasts, but only 20% listen to a podcast connected to a news organization. Despite so few Americans listening to news-anchored podcasts, 87% say they expect the news they hear on podcasts to be accurate. As a reflection of their growing popularity, investments in podcasts have increased over the last few years. For example, Spotify invested $200 million dollars in the Joe Rogan Experience podcast, which is consistently the most listened to podcast worldwide.

There have been calls for government regulation to limit misinformation and hold new media sources, like podcasts and social media, to the same standards of liability as traditional media sources. Congress has held multiple hearings with tech industry leaders to gather information about potential regulation. The spread of partial and misinformation related to elections, COVID and other major events has led to a new heightened attention to social media regulation. Potential policy changes include regulation by the government and improved content moderation by platforms. Policy surrounding new media has yet to play out but walks a fine line of freedom of speech and liability issues.

How does media usage vary between well-informed and less-informed citizens?

The ability of partisan media to influence the political opinions of news consumers depends on who is actually consuming the media with strong partisans more open to messages in the media that resonate with their political beliefs. Similarly, consumers of social media may be more susceptible to false information or receiving a limited perspective on the situation at hand. Americans who get most of their information from social media tend to have less education as well as a lower household income. Moreover, people who primarily use social media are less politically knowledgeable and more likely to have heard conspiracy theories. During the 2020 Presidential election, those who relied on social media as their primary source of information were the least likely to be following news coverage of candidates.

‍

Who Are Refugees?  What Is Asylum?

A refugee is a person outside his or her country of nationality who is unable to return to that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution due to their race, religion, nationality, social group, or political opinion. An asylum seeker is a person who meets the definition of refugee and is already present in the United States or is seeking admission at a port of entry. Both types of individuals can apply for permanent legal residence in the United States.

Of the more than 100 million people mentioned above, 35 million are refugees protected by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the rest are internally displaced people. The countries that host the largest number of refugees and asylees are usually countries neighboring the refugees’ country of origin. For example, Turkey, Uganda, and Pakistan all have high refugee acceptance numbers. However, the United States and other developed nations are popular destinations for refugees who have decided against returning to their home country.

How Many Refugees and Asylum Seekers Are Admitted To the US Each Year?  

The President, with approval from Congress, establishes a ceiling for the number of refugees and asylum seekers who can be admitted to the United States each year. The figure below shows the year-to-year changes since 1990. Note also that the actual number of admissions can be lower than the quota – in 2022, with a ceiling of 125,000, the U.S. only admitted 25,465 individuals.

‍

Where Do Refugees And Asylum Seekers Come From?

The point of origin of asylum seekers coming to the U.S. has changed over time. Conflicts in the Middle East and Africa have driven many refugees to flee to neighboring countries in Europe as well as the United States. The chart below shows the distribution for refugee admission to the US in 2022. Of the total 25,465 admitted refugees, 11,358 originated from Africa, 2,215 from East Asia (including China, Vietnam, and Indonesia), 2,351 from Europe/Central Asia, 2,485 from Latin America/Caribbean, and 7,056 from Near East/South Asia (including Iraq, Iran, India, Syria, and Egypt).

‍

How Are Refugee and Asylum Claims Decided?

It is not easy to gain asylum status. This process has many hurdles and requires knowledge of the law and legal assistance. In order to be granted asylum, individuals must go through a set of bureaucratic steps and interviews where they must show that their country of origin is no longer safe for them to live in. About half of all asylum applications are ultimately rejected.

After completing a detailed application, an asylum seeker must schedule an interview with an officer from US Citizen and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). In this interview, they must provide original documents proving their identity. If the asylum seeker needs a translator, they are responsible for providing a person to fill this role. In the interview, the agent will ask the applicant an extensive list of questions to determine if their unique situation meets the criteria to be labeled as a refugee.

The U.S. courts have identified three types of oppressive behavior: harassment, discrimination, and persecution. Asylum is awarded only if an applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution, specifically a threat to life or freedom on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Serious physical harm is the most recognized form of persecution. The outcome of each judicial review depends on a refugee’s ability to provide a credible account of their persecution and to back their claims with evidence. In particular, economic insecurity is not a basis for establishing persecution.  

Asylum is sometimes applied for through a defense application when the applicant requests asylum as a way to prevent deportation from the United States. These applications usually occur after an initial asylum application is denied or because someone was apprehended by the U.S. Customs and Border Control as an unauthorized immigrant. These hearings are conducted by an immigration judge who then decides the applicant’s asylum status.

If granted asylum, the recipient is protected from being sent to their home country. Once granted asylum, asylees are granted work permits, can receive welfare benefits, and are eventually able to apply for a social security and a green card or US citizenship. A person’s asylum status will never expire, and can only be removed by USCIS under very particular circumstances. If a refugee or an asylee receive legal permanent resident status, they can apply for U.S. citizenship in five years.

The application process for refugees usually takes 18 months to 2 years. During this time, refugees are usually waiting in a neighboring country in which they escaped, in their home country, or in a refugee camp. Asylum seekers face a different process. All asylum applicants must be located in the United States or at a port of entry. Asylees must apply for asylum status within one year of arriving in the U.S. and they may not apply for a green card until one year after they are granted asylum. The entire process can take many years. Additionally, asylum seekers are not entitled to a work permit until after they receive asylum status.

Over the years Cuban refugees have had a special status in the U.S. Historically, Cuban refugees were automatically granted asylum if they made it to American soil. This policy ended in 2017. Recent years have seen significant increases of Cubans crossing the southern border through Mexico. Under current policy, up to 30,000 Cubans, Haitians, Venezualians, and Nicauraguans can be admitted to the U.S. with a U.S. sponsor; however, if people from these countries attempt to enter the country without humanitarian parole, they will face immediate expulsion.

Does the US Admit More or Fewer Refugees Than Other Countries?

Data from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees on the number of refugees admitted to different countries over the last 70 years is shown below. The countries that have admitted the largest number of refugees and asylees are usually near the refugees’ country of origin. For example, Turkey, Uganda, and Pakistan all have high refugee acceptance numbers – from, respectively, Syria, Somalia, and Afghanistan. The US is a popular destination for refugees because of its economic prosperity, but it is not a leader in terms of total admissions. Germany’s refugee acceptance numbers are high due to a provision in the German Constitution that obligates the country to accept asylum-seekers.

‍

‍

What Types of Media Bias Are There?

Researchers have identified two distinct types of media misinformation. Overt media bias is when a news organization deliberately misrepresents events or data in order to shape public opinion. Instances of overt bias are rare. Often, bias is more subtle, like a news organization choosing only to report stories that make one side of the political aisle look good. Such bias is often called partisan or ideological slant, and is more common. Even more subtle forms of bias exist. Slant can also make its way into media coverage by framing, or how a story describes events. Framing involves selectively gathering facts (accurately reported, but including only a portion of relevant information) to promote a particular interpretation of an event.

People who study media bias think about it as a three-legged stool: distortion bias is when the media purposefully misrepresents facts, content bias is when a news organization gives more attention or coverage to one political side of the aisle than the other, and decision-making bias is when a journalist or editor is influenced too much by their personal preferences.

One way to measure distortion bias is by looking at the ideological position of news media in the language used and comparing that to language used by politicians, specifically members of Congress. If the commentary, storyline and word choices used match those of conservative members of Congress, these newspapers could be labeled conservative-leaning and vice versa. One way to measure content bias is to study variation in the intensity with which topics are covered by news media, which political figures are spotlighted or featured as guests, and the tone when these topics are written about. Decision-making bias can be measured by focusing on differences in story content across reporters.

Just How Biased Is The Media?  

Excluding high-profile mainstream news outlets which are of common conversation in today’s society, most studies find that relatively few media outlets are consistently, overtly, biased. Most organizations are considered centrist, modestly leaning to one side of the aisle or the other. Comparing the content and activity of regional broadcast news and newspapers to the ideological profiles of elected officials and Supreme Court justices tells us that most news organizations are in the middle of the ideological profiles of politicians. A study of newspapers found that newspapers tended to lean to the left on social issues and to the right on economic issues, but that an average of the ideological positions of newspapers fall in the middle of the left-right spectrum. Some news media organizations, however, have clear ideological or partisan slants. For example, Fox News is considered a right-leaning news organization, and CNN and MSNBC are considered left-leaning.

National surveys find that compared to the general public, a higher percentage of reporters are politically liberal (or Democrats). A 2013 study of journalists found that 50% identified as independent, while 28.1% identified as a Democrat, 7% identified as a Republican, and nearly 10% identified as another party. However, the political leanings of reporters in many cases reflect their local community, so highly Republican areas have a higher percentage of conservative reporters, and highly Democratic areas have more liberal reporters.  

Insofar as bias exists, it may reflect market forces. Reporters and editors also face strong incentives to write stories that attract an audience. Television broadcast news organizations rely on advertisements for revenue, which means the more viewers you have, the more revenue you make. Advertisers spent an estimated $504 billion on advertising at ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news programs alone in 2020. Under these conditions, media outlets face strong incentives to alter coverage to attract an audience. In this way, overt bias and slant reflect the opinions of the American public, and the fact that most people look for media coverage that is consistent with their ideological or partisan beliefs.  

Does My Choice Of Media Sources Affect What I Learn About Politics And Policy?

How people think about politics, candidates, and policy issues can be influenced by how news stories are written and what news media organizations decide to cover. Researchers have found that viewing news stories that match up with a person’s already-held political beliefs or opinions can make that person hold their beliefs more strongly. Similarly, researchers have documented that individuals tend to consume news that aligns with their partisan identity, and rarely consume political news that does not align with their political beliefs. News audiences with the most extreme political opinions often choose to consume partisan-slanted media, which can lead to audiences holding more extreme positions on issues.

What Can Americans Do To Find Better Media Coverage?

Deliberation, discussion, and exposure to information and alternative arguments are important in receiving the best media coverage. The best way to recognize outright bias and more subtle slant is to think about how they may be at play in any news article you read or program you watch. The best way to guard against framing by news organizations is to read articles about the same topic from multiple sources and see how the authors and organizations approach the topic differently.

To ensure access to fair, complete, and accurate political information in the long-term, Americans can read and support (pay for) media outlets, particularly at the local level. The work journalists do, sometimes connected to network news, but often found in local newspapers, local radio news, and local television news, helps us keep elected officials accountable by providing information about complex topics and situations from different viewpoints. Considering journalism as a resource essential to a healthy, thriving democracy, might help to ensure we can consume information from multiple sources that are less driven by national market forces.  

What Are The Main Approaches For Managing The Economy?

There are two main theories of economic policy making. One school of thought, labeled here as the Keynesians (after the economist John Meynard Keynes), believes that governments can and should use fiscal and monetary policy to move things closer to the Goldilocks ideal. The other school of thought, labeled here as Laissez Faire (a French phrase meaning “let it be”), argues that efforts to control the economy do more harm than good, and that the economy works best when it is allowed to operate with minimal government intervention.

Keynesians believe that aggregate demand, or the total money spent by households, businesses, and the government, is the driving force behind the economy. Keynesians argue that low demand leads to high unemployment and low economic growth. To increase demand, Keynesians propose policies such as deficit spending – spending more than the amount collected in taxes – and reductions in interest rates. The aim is to increase demand, which in turn will lower unemployment, increase economic growth, and reduce inflation.  

The other common economic school of thought is called Laissez Faire or Monetarists, whose principal proponents include economists Fredrick Hayek and Milton Friedman. Adherents to this school of thought believe that growth, unemployment, and inflation are all driven by changes in the money supply. Followers of the school believe that the government should intervene as little as possible in the economy. They argue that poor economic conditions such as low growth, high unemployment, or high inflation are self-correcting, and that government efforts to mitigate these problems only cause more harm. For example, if the government engaged in deficit spending to stimulate demand, this action could increase inflation without affecting growth or unemployment.  For monetarists, the government’s most important job is to keep the total amount of money in circulation expanding at a slow, constant rate.

‍Which Approach Is The Main Driver of U.S. Economic Policy?

Modern American economic policy involves a combination of Keynesianism and Monetarism, an approach often referred to Neoliberalism. In recent years, the federal government has acted aggressively to stimulate the economy during the financial crisis of 2008 and the COVID-19 pandemic. These efforts sent money directly to individuals and businesses, and paid for large infrastructure, healthcare, and education programs designed to increase economic growth, address income inequality, and increase quality of life in American communities. On a more limited basis, there has also been an emphasis on less government regulation of businesses, few regulations on trade, and efforts to control government spending.

How Do Other Nations Determine Their Economic Policies?

Economic policies in other nations resemble the US in that they combine Keynesian and Monetarist measures. However, the specifics vary across nations. For example, the European Union initially followed austerity measures during the 2008 financial crisis, which aimed at reducing public spending and fiscal deficits. However, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the EU implemented large-scale fiscal stimulus packages and increased government spending to support economic recovery. In countries like Germany and South Korea, a more balanced approach has been adopted, combining free-market principles with strong social welfare systems and targeted government intervention in strategic industries.

How Much Control Do Policy-Makers Have Over Economic Conditions?

Economic activity fluctuates over time — these patterns of economic activity are called the business cycle. The cycle consists of periods of economic expansion where Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increases and contractions where GDP decreases. GDP declines generally happen when demand for goods and services fall due to reduced demand, increased unemployment, high inflation, or a combination. Economic theory suggests that expansion is the natural state of the economy and that recession only occurs when unexpected events, or economic shocks, disrupt these factors. Shocks can include war that increase oil prices or pandemics that shut down supply chains and increase unemployment.

The remedy, according to Keynesians, is government intervention to mitigate the impact of economic shocks. As noted earlier, the federal government acted to stimulate the economy during both the Financial Crisis of 2008 and during the COVID pandemic of 2020-2022. These efforts included tax cuts, direct payments to individuals and businesses, and increased levels of government spending on infrastructure and other programs. Such spending directly increases our national debt and can lead to inflation which was seen in late 2021 into the first half of 2023 in the United States.

Did these efforts work as intended? The record is mixed, reflecting how hard it is to determine the appropriate policy response to an economic shock. The figure below shows real GDP (controlling for inflation) in the US for 2020-2023. The Financial Crisis and COVID pandemic are noted on the chart.

‍

As the chart shows, the Financial Crisis caused a noticeable decline in GDP from 2008 to 2009. Moreover, while GDP resumed its upward trend in 2009, the gap between actual GDP and the trend in place prior to the Crisis did not close until several years later. Thus, while the government’s stimulus measures may have prevented a sharper decline in GDP, it did not eliminate the economic damage caused by the Crisis.

In contrast, it is hard to see the decline in GDP caused by COVID – it is fairly small, and the gap between actual and trend is closed almost immediately. It is likely that the much larger amount of COVID assistance was effective in responding to the economic shock. However, the larger stimulus likely had a cost in the form of higher levels of inflation in 2021-2023 (for details, see our policy memo on Inflation listed in the Further Reading section).

Two insights can be drawn from the government’s responses to the Financial Crisis and the Covid pandemic. First, it is difficult to determine how much stimulus is enough – in the case of the Financial Crisis, one argument is that the government did not do enough to mitigate the impact of the shock. However, in the case of COVID, there is an argument that the stimulus was too large and generated unwanted side effects (inflation).  

Second, the argument from believers in Monetarist/Laissez Faire policy-making that the economy would recover faster without government intervention are untested in the recent past. Policy-makers simply do not know what would happen. Even somewhat unsuccessful interventions such as during the Financial Crisis may have prevented a far worse outcome. Regardless, analyzing the cause and effect of government spending over time can help lead to better decision-making for our policy makers.

‍

How Many Immigrants Are In The United States?

US immigration laws have evolved throughout American history. They are the result of compromises fought by many groups with different interests and beliefs about the desirability of immigration (how many, from where, and under what conditions).  

As of January 2022, approximately 12.9 million immigrants are authorized to live in the United States (3.9% of the United States population) as legal permanent residents.  About 14% of the United States population today are foreign-born including naturalized citizens, permanent residents, and unauthorized immigrants.   As the figures below show, the number of individuals admitted each year varies widely, although both in raw numbers and adjusted for the size of the population, immigration to the US has steadily increased over time.

‍

‍

Immigration to the United States has taken place since its colonial days, but the countries of origin of immigrants have changed over time. For many years, immigration was governed by national quotas.  However, legislation enacted in the 1960s eliminated national origin quotas and moved to the system described below. While a substantial portion of immigrants come from Mexico, South/Central America, China, and India, nearly half of the total are from the rest of the world.

‍

What Criteria Are Used To Determine Who Can Immigrate To The US?

The criteria for permanent residency by the US government fall into four broad categories: family reunification, employment, diversity, and asylum or refuge.  The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) allows 675,000 permanent immigrant visas each year across these categories. Additionally, there is no cap on U.S. citizens’ spouses, children, and parents who are under the age of 21. For refugees, the president sets a limit in consultation with Congress.  

‍

The Diversity Immigration Visa Program allows for immigration permits through a lottery system for people from countries with low levels of immigration (fewer than 50,000 over the previous 5 years) to the United States. Examples include Cameroon, Nepal, and Albania, among many others. 55,000 visas are allocated each year through the lottery system. To be eligible applicants have to meet certain qualifications, such as having a high school level education or two years of working or training experience. The chances of being selected depend on where the applicant is from, but the chances generally are very low.

Family reunification is the path that most permanent visas are issued. Specifically, most are immediate relatives. The maximum number of family reunification visas is 480,000, but this is often surpassed due to the unlimited number of immediate relatives under the age of 21.  The permanent employment-based immigration limit is 140,000 a year, including spouses and children. If there are unused spots from the previous year, they are added to the cap for the following year.

Temporary vs. Permanent Legal Status

Legal entry into the United States can be either temporary or permanent. Temporary legal status is often called “nonimmigrant admission” by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Temporary visas typically include high- and low-skill employment, educational opportunities, or tourism that typically last between less than a year and six years. In 2019, 186 million temporary visas were granted. Of the 186 million, around 4.1 million were temporary workers and their families. These temporary work visas are designed to fill labor market shortages in both high-skilled and physical labor markets. The length of a temporary visa depends on the purpose of the visa. Visas for temporary travel are usually for a maximum of 1 year. Students usually have the length of their term of study plus 60 days. Temporary work visas for high-skill workers are capped at 3 years while low-skill workers do not usually extend beyond 1 year.

How Does US Authorized Immigration Policy Compare To Other Nations?

Immigration policies vary widely across countries. Some do not regulate immigration heavily; people can travel and reside in the country relatively freely. Other countries have strict bans on immigration. In 2019, the United States hosted the largest portion of the world’s immigrants, around 19%. Germany hosted just under 5%, and the United Kingdom hosted around 4%. All other G7 countries hosted under 4%.

Researchers have found that many countries around the world are becoming more selective in who they grant legal resident status to, rather than restricting immigration to the country in general. One way to measure how many people are leaving a country (emigrating) compared to coming to that country (immigrating) is by subtracting total emigration from total immigration. This is called net migration. The United States has the highest positive net migration among all countries, meaning more individuals immigrate to the US than individuals emigrate away from the US each year.

Globally, many countries have passed policies to attract high-skilled workers. A 2017 study of 196 governments’ immigration policies finds that 85% of governments have established policies to either raise or maintain current levels of highly-skilled immigrants to their country. This is not the case for the US whose system is more heavily oriented toward family reunification—the result of political compromises in the 1965 law.

‍

How much does America spend on national defense?

Last year, the US spent almost $800 billion on defense, or about 3% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP, a measure of the size of the US economy), with roughly equal amounts for the Army, Navy and Marines, and the Air Force.  

It is important to remember that this budget does not take into account expenditures for active warfare; it is only the cost of maintaining the United States military during peacetime. For example, Congress spent around $2.3 trillion in ‘Overseas Contingency Operations’ in the 20 years since 9/11.  The total also does not include military assistance to other nations, such as the over $30 billion in weaponry sent to Ukraine over the last two years.

What are the major components of defense spending?

Defense spending can be broken down into several major categories. Operations ($278.1 billion) maintains bases and military hardware and pays for fuel and other logistics.  Personnel ($172.7 billion) includes pay for 1.3 million military personnel as well as 750,000 civilians who work for the Department of Defense.  Procurement ($162.2 billion) pays for new hardware, from airplanes to office supplies.  Research and testing ($136.7 billion) funds the development of new technologies and weapons systems.  

‍

‍How has the size of the defense budget changed over time?

The national defense budget makes up a significant portion of overall federal spending, though the specific amounts have changed over time.  In general, the overall budget has increased dramatically since the 1960s.  On the other hand, defense spending as a percent of GDP has dropped considerably in the same time frame.

‍

‍

How does America’s defense budget compare to its allies and principal adversaries?  

The US spends more on national defense than any other country, including other large industrialized countries. In fact, America’s current military spending is more than the next 11 highest-spending countries combined. (One caveat is that official spending levels in authoritarian regimes may significantly underestimate actual spending.)  However, as shown below, measuring defense spending in terms of GDP shows that US spending is comparable to its allies and adversaries.  The US spending rate (3.5%) is most of the G7 countries, but below Russia (4.1%).

‍

Why is defense spending so high when we’re not at war?

A large defense budget is crucial for preserving national security interests, both domestically and internationally.  A large military may deter aggression by other countries.  Cuts to the defense budget could weaken our military capacity and make it difficult to be at high capacity should a conflict arise.  In addition, a large defense budget helps the broader economy by maintaining employment numbers and supporting the entire defense industry. Nevertheless, critics point out that high defense spending comes at the expense of using public funds to support domestic programs or infrastructure projects.  

What are the options for cutting defense spending?

Cutting defense spending is a complex and politically sensitive issue. Policymakers could reduce personnel, equipment, global operations, or research and development spending.  They could also reconsider US alliances. However, each option has serious potential consequences.

Reducing the number of personnel would lead to major cuts in defense spending. However, any significant cuts would increase unemployment and limit the capacity of the DoD to undertake its missions.

Cutting spending from the other major areas could result in reduced military readiness and a more vulnerable national security status. Research and development funding remains vital as the United States fights to maintain competition with China, which currently leads in the competition for emerging technologies.  Weapons procurement is equally essential as we prepare for future engagements or assist partners during a conflict like Ukraine.

A final method to reduce the defense budget would be to reconsider our foreign commitments and overseas presence. Since WWII, the US has been heavily involved in many alliances, security agreements, and partnerships, each with its own financial obligations. Such commitments are arguably in our national security interest, but further deepen our defense budget and cannot be easily removed without angering partners.  However, renegotiation or outright withdrawal might lead to significant cuts in defense spending.

Why Do Nations Trade?  

The basis of international trade stems from comparative advantage: each nation concentrates on producing primarily those goods and services where they are the lowest-cost supplier (or leverage some form of unique, technical or related advantage), and import most everything else from other nations. In this way, trade increases efficiency and economic growth.  

A nation’s comparative advantage depends on factors such as the skills held by its labor force, infrastructure, and natural resources. For example, while Vietnam has a comparative advantage in manufacturing due to lower labor costs, the United States specializes in service industries. By the logic of comparative advantage, the United States should export services such as management consulting and financial advising, while Vietnam exports textiles, machinery, and computer chips.

The downside of comparative advantage is that domestic industries might be outcompeted due to foreign competition, resulting in unemployment and economic hardship. Following this example, an American retail company might buy clothing from a factory in Vietnam because it costs less than buying the same items from an American clothing factory. (On average, manufacturing labor costs in Vietnam are much lower than in the United States). The American company’s imports keep the Vietnamese factory in business and allow it to sell products at a lower price – but it might put some American clothing factories out of business because they cannot match the cheaper prices of their Vietnamese counterparts. Additionally, in some instances the country importing such products or services could lack control over quality and availability of critical items like prescription medicines.

What Are The Main Options For America’s Trade Policies?

Generally, trade policy involves a choice between free trade and protectionism. A free trade policy encourages individuals and businesses to purchase the cheapest-possible products that serve their needs, regardless of where it is produced.  For example, if an American company needed to purchase computer chips, it would buy from the producer with the lowest price, even if the producer was in another country.  

Protectionism is the opposite of free trade.  It focuses on restricting trade for the purpose of protecting a nation’s industries from foreign competition.  Protectionist policies are generally implemented using tariffs. Tariffs are taxes that nations impose on imports to protect domestic industries from foreign competition. The tariff is added to the price of the import and is paid by importers and passed on to consumers. Some tariffs target raw materials, others focus on final products, and they vary in severity as well.

A protectionist strategy is attractive for two reasons. One is national security. For example, the United States might want to ensure that it had domestic sources of computer chips, so that the supply would be secure even in a time of war that disrupted supply chains. Protectionism also secures domestic jobs from foreign competition. That is, an American factory that produced computer chips could stay in business by selling chips to American consumers even if a foreign company could manufacture chips at a lower price because the price of the foreign company’s chips was increased by a tariff.

The downside of tariffs is that they increase the prices that consumers pay for imported goods and services. In addition, if one nation raises its tariffs, other nations may respond with their own tariffs, creating a situation where everyone pays higher prices than they would otherwise and negating the benefits of comparative advantage.

What Is America’s Trade Policy?

Since World War II, the trade policies of the US and other major industrialized democracies have generally moved towards free trade. As shown in the figure below, in 1930, the average US tariff on foreign goods was 60% of the wholesale price, but that number fell to 4% by 1989 and 1.6% by 2011. Some US tariffs have been increased in recent years, but in general, tariffs are much lower than they were two generations ago.

‍

Lowering barriers to trade has increased US imports and exports as shown in the figure below (imports are the black line, exports are the red line). Both imports and exports are shown as a percentage of GDP (Gross Domestic Product, a measure of the size of the US economy). In recent years, imports have been about 15 percent of GDP, while exports are about 11 percent. The difference between imports and exports is the trade deficit (discussed below).

‍

The US has also worked with other nations to create agreements to lower tariffs across most or all imports and exports. An example is NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). NAFTA went into effect in 1994, eliminating tariffs between the US, Mexico, and Canada. In general, NAFTA has increased exports from Mexico to the US, motivated some US companies to build factories in Mexico to export products to the US, and lowered the price of Mexican and Canadian imports for US consumers.  

The US is also a key player in building international organizations that regulate trade. The US Founded in 1995, the World Trade Organization (WTO), which is an international oversight organization that works to reduce trade barriers and implement the principle of comparative advantage. One hundred sixty-four nations are members of the WTO, and the organization helps to oversee trade agreements and settle disputes between member states.

What Are The Strengths And Weaknesses Of America’s Current Trade Policy?

The United States’ open economy and its dedication to free trade have significant benefits. Participation in agreements to lower tariffs and eliminate other barriers to trade means that US consumers can regularly buy a wider range of foreign goods at lower prices, raising their purchasing power. Lower tariffs also create new export markets for American corporations.  

However, encouraging imports and exports has important disadvantages. The ability to import goods from countries that manufacture them for much cheaper prices poses serious issues for some American companies and their employees. As shown in the figure below, over the last two generations, the percentage of Americans who work in the manufacturing sector has declined from about 25 percent in 1971 to less than 9 percent in 2023.  

‍

At the same time, imports of manufactured goods from Mexico, China, and other nations have dramatically increased. These trends highlight the costs and benefits of free trade: while free trade lowers prices for many American consumers and creates new jobs in American industries that build exportable products, it hurts industries that lose business to cheaper foreign suppliers – as well as their employees and the local economies where these industries are located.

Is America Getting Taken Advantage Of In Its Trade With Other Nations?

The main argument for America getting taken advantage of in international trade is the size of the trade deficit – the difference between the value of goods imported and goods exported. The dark line in the figure below shows the value of the US trade deficit in billions of dollars. It shows that the US has consistently run a trade deficit since the early 1980s, amounting to almost a trillion dollars annually by 2020.  

‍

If we think of a country as a person, a trade deficit would amount to spending more money than is earned, which would be a problem if the disparity was large enough and continued long enough. At the national level, however, this logic does not always apply. Many economic analyses show that a trade deficit is a sign of economic strength, as well-off consumers spend more money to import goods from other nations, and foreigners invest money in well-run American businesses. And it is important to remember that despite running a sizable trade deficit for the last 40 years, America has had low unemployment, low inflation, and consistent economic growth for most of this time.  

Another way of looking at America’s trade deficit is to separate trade in goods from trade in services, as shown in the two gray lines in the above figure. As the figure shows, while the US has an increasing trade deficit in goods, it also has an increasing trade surplus in services. Here again, the data suggests the value of free trade to the US, as American individuals and businesses import low-profit margin goods from other countries and export high-profit margin services to these same nations.  

The other “taking advantage” issue from free trade is the consequences of this policy for the workers who lose wages and jobs because consumers switch to cheaper imports. There is no doubt that free trade makes these workers and their communities worse off, at least in the short run. Thus, trade policy is an example of a situation where even if a policy choice (free trade, protectionism, or some combination) may make a nation as a whole better off, there will be some winners and some losers in specific industries or communities.

‍

What are the major components of discretionary spending?

Federal discretionary spending pays for much of what the government does outside of defense and entitlement programs.  This spending is “discretionary” because the spending levels for these programs are set each year in the budget enacted by Congress.  There is nothing preventing politicians from eliminating any or all discretionary spending – or increasing it to whatever levels they or their constituents want.

The chart below shows the major components of discretionary spending for the fiscal year ending on September 30, 2022.  

‍

The categories illustrate the wide range of activities performed by federal agencies:

• Agriculture includes payments to farmers as well as food assistance to the poor.
• General government programs pay for administrative staff as well as salaries for elected officials.
• Science and technology programs include NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) and other agencies such as NSF (National Science Foundation).
• Commerce spending covers enforcement of tariffs and trade regulations as well as efforts to promote economic development.
• Law enforcement funding pays for federal law enforcement including border control.
• Transportation spending covers federal programs to build and maintain roads and bridges as well as the Federal Aviation Agency.
• Community development programs pay for grants to local cities and towns throughout the United States.  
• Health spending funds the Centers for Disease Control and other public health initiatives.
• International affairs programs include direct foreign aid to other nations as well as contributions to the United Nations and other international agencies.
• Income security programs include the federal government’s contribution to state and local welfare agencies.
• Natural resource and environment spending funds agencies such as the US Forest Service and the Environmental Protection Agency.  
• Education funding includes aid to elementary and secondary schools as well as universities and vocational programs.

How has discretionary spending changed over time?

The figure below shows that as a percentage of GDP (Gross Domestic Product, which measures the size of the US economy), federal discretionary spending has remained relatively constant over time, amounting to about 6 – 4% of GDP for the past forty years. In general, discretionary spending has stayed the same or even declined over this time.  

‍

The two exceptions to the overall flat trend in discretionary spending both involved a response to emergencies.  In 2009-11, federal spending increased in response to the 2008 financial crisis, including subsidies to businesses and economic stimulus spending on roads, bridges, and other infrastructure.  The more recent spike in discretionary spending involved expansions of health care programs and economic stimulus in response to the COVID pandemic.  

What parts of discretionary spending are smaller than generally thought?

One of the most important features of the discretionary spending chart is the finding that federal spending in some areas is much smaller than commonly believed.  Consider international assistance. Total funding (not including military assistance) amounted to $71 billion dollars in 2022 – just over one percent of total federal spending.  This funding includes programs to deliver health care, strengthen education, build democracy, assist refugees, and increase economic development.  

Similarly, funding for science and technology research throughout the federal government amounted to $37 billion dollars – about one-half percent of total spending in 2022.  Slightly more than half of this funding was for NASA, but additional funds were for programs such as the Energy Department’s general science program and the research on crop yields funded by the Department of Agriculture.

‍How much of discretionary spending goes to “waste, fraud, and abuse”?

One common complaint about federal spending is that the government spends too much money on programs of little merit.  One response to this claim lies in the list of specific programs discussed earlier.  For each one, it is easy to identify large groups of people who favor the program or directly benefit from its spending.  The point is not that such support justifies the spending, but that the federal government does very few things that no one (or very few people) want.

One systematic analysis of possibly-wasteful government spending comes from the non-partisan organization Citizens Against Government Waste, who publishes the Congressional Pig Book, an annual list of budget items that were spent without being included in an earlier authorization resolution, were not requested by the President, and were not competitively awarded.  Typically these programs were added to the budget by individual members to serve largely local interests.  The Pig Book may overestimate the amount of waste in the federal budget, as it is likely that some of these programs are strongly supported by the public and provide important benefits.  Even so, of the nearly one trillion dollars of discretionary spending in the earlier table, the Pig Book flags only about $16 billion dollars as potentially wasteful spending, or only about two percent of total discretionary spending.  

How does federal discretionary spending compare to spending by states?

While federal discretionary spending has declined over the last generation, spending by state and local governments has increased.  The following chart shows state and local governments spending as a percent of GDP since 1970.   Over this time, spending has increased from about 10 percent of GDP to almost 14 percent.

‍

Can discretionary spending be reduced?

In principle, discretionary spending is the easiest kind of spending to reduce.  And for entitlement programs such as Social Security or Medicare, the government is required to budget as much as needed to deliver the program’s benefits as mandated by law.  The only way to reduce entitlement spending is to change the underlying laws that define what beneficiaries receive from the programs.  Discretionary programs, in contrast, have no mandated spending levels – members of Congress can reduce spending as much as they want (or even eliminate programs entirely) by changing the annual appropriations bills that fund the federal government.  

The question is, what programs are elected officials and their constituents willing to cut?  The data we have shown here suggests that there are very few truly wasteful government programs that no one wants.  Reducing spending will require true pain, where the government stops (or reduces funding for) programs that deliver benefits and receive public support.  In this sense, cutting discretionary spending involves a benefit and a cost: lower spending, but also fewer government services.  

One other important point made by these graphs is that discretionary spending is not the principal driver of overall federal spending or of the federal budget deficit.  As we discuss in other policy briefs, the increases in recent years are driven by (a) tax cuts, (b) increased spending on entitlements and defense, and (c) spending on COVID-related assistance.  In contrast, discretionary spending is not out of control; if anything, it has decreased in recent years.

What is an entitlement?

An entitlement is a federal program that provides benefits to any American citizen who qualifies.  Examples include Social Security, which sends payments to retired Americans, SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), which helps low-income Americans pay for food, and Medicare, which funds health care for retired Americans and some non-retirees.

A key feature of an entitlement is that the government’s commitment to providing benefits is open-ended.  For most federal programs, spending levels are set each year by appropriation bills that are passed by Congress and signed by the President.  The government cannot spend more than the amount appropriated.  With an entitlement, as long as the law that established benefits remains in place, the government must spend as much money as needed to provide these benefits to everyone who qualifies, regardless of whatever spending limits are in the enacted budget.

For example, one entitlement administered by the Medicare program pays for kidney dialysis for anyone who needs it.  In recent years, the program has served about 500,000 people per year at a cost of about $6.5 billion.  However, if an additional 300,000 people needed kidney dialysis in 2023, the Medicare program would have to pay for dialysis for all of them.  Administrators could not restrict coverage to those people already receiving dialysis, limit the number of new participants, or announce they were only going to pay 80% of actual costs for everyone to limit costs.   Until Congress and the President change the law, everyone would have to be covered.

What entitlements exist today?

The best-known example of an entitlement program is Social Security, which sends monthly checks to retired Americans. This program was created in 1935.  People who have worked for at least 10 years qualify for partial Social Security benefits at age 62.  The age to qualify for full benefits depends on birth year; for anyone born in 1960 or later, it is 67.  The size of an individual’s benefit depends on their lifetime income.  Americans contribute to Social Security through paycheck deductions. Currently, individuals and their employers each pay a 6.2% tax on income up to $142,000. Because payroll deductions do not pay for the entire cost of the program, the remaining benefits are funded through the federal budget.

Two other well-known entitlement programs are Medicare and Medicaid.  Medicare pays for health care for seniors and the disabled, while Medicaid provides health coverage to the poor.  Medicare coverage is guaranteed to anyone over the age of 65.  Funding is provided through payroll deductions (individuals and their employers each pay 1.45% of income), through premiums paid by Medicare recipients, and from the federal budget.  Other federal entitlements include unemployment benefits, welfare benefits, housing subsidies for the poor, and SNAP.

What do entitlement programs do?

Federal entitlement programs are intended to provide a safety net for individuals during recessions, personal crises (including health and mental health issues), and old age, ensuring that they can maintain a decent standard of living regardless of income.  For example, Medicaid benefits were received by 62% of nursing home residents and about half of disabled adults.  Without these payments, few of these individuals could afford to pay for skilled care.  Similarly, 83% of children whose family income is below the poverty line receive Medicaid support for routine medical care as well as medical emergencies.  Without the federal entitlement, most of these children would not have any health coverage.

‍

Programs like SNAP, the child tax credit tax, and housing subsidies have been shown to reduce the number of households with children that are in poverty by more than 60%.  Moreover, data shows that children in lower-income households that receive benefits from entitlement programs perform better in the labor market as adults.   One of the most notable achievements of an entitlement program is how Social Security reduced poverty rates for seniors.  As the figure shows, the actual poverty rate among American seniors (9%) would be over four times higher (38%) without Social Security benefits.

How much do entitlements cost?

Entitlement programs make up an increasingly large portion of federal spending, from about 30 percent in 1960 to over 60 percent in recent years. The figure below shows the estimated cost of several large entitlement programs for the current fiscal year (October 1, 2022 – September 30, 2023):

‍

Health programs include Medicare, Medicaid, and the Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP).  Income security includes programs such as unemployment benefits, TANF, and SNAP.

This chart illustrates the central issue with entitlement programs: while there is strong public support for most of the benefits these programs provide, providing these benefits is costly.  An aging population, increased life expectancy, and increasing healthcare costs will continue to put further stress on entitlement spending over the next 30 years as the Baby Boomer generation begins to reach the age to collect entitlement benefits. As shown in the diagram below, Medicare spending is projected to double to $1.844 trillion by 2031.

‍

Increasing lifespans and declining birth rates also create problems for Social Security.  Older Americans are collecting benefits for a longer time, and there are fewer younger Americans paying into the program.  Since 2010, the trust fund has been receiving less in payroll taxes than it has been paying out in benefits.  Currently, this shortfall is being covered from reserve funds.  If the program is not changed, the trust fund will be able to pay only about 80 percent of full benefits to recipients after 2035.

Controlling entitlement spending

There are three ways to reduce the growth of entitlement programs.  First, benefits can be cut, either for current or future beneficiaries.  Second, current or future beneficiaries can pay a greater share of the program’s cost.  And third, eligibility requirements for an entitlement can be changed to reduce the number of people who receive benefits.

Proposed reforms to the Social Security program provide a good example of these strategies.  Most studies identify a similar package of policy changes to close the gap between benefits and receipts:

• Currently, the Social Security tax is collected only on the first $147,000 of an individual’s income. Reforms would increase this limit or eliminate it entirely.
• Increase the age where a person is eligible for Social Security (currently 62) or can collect full benefits (currently 67 for those born in 1960 or later) by several years, to 65 for partial benefits and 70 for full benefits.
• Change the formula used to adjust Social Security benefits for inflation (the current formula causes benefits to rise slightly faster than the actual inflation rate experienced by retirees).
• More significant changes would limit the maximum size of Social Security benefits or move to a system where everyone receives the same benefit. Another proposal is to invest a portion of the trust fund in stocks and other securities.  Doing this might increase the size of the trust fund but could also create larger problems paying full benefits during a stock market downturn.)

These proposals illustrate a central issue with entitlement reform: there are no easy solutions.  Curbing increases in the cost of these programs involves pain in the form of higher taxes or lower benefits for someone, either current recipients, future recipients, or both.  Conversely, if no changes are made, entitlements will capture an increasing share of federal spending, leading to higher taxes, increased budget deficits, or cuts in other government programs.

What is Section 230?

Section 230, part of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, shields the owners of internet platforms (such as internet service providers, website owners, and social media websites) from legal liability for content created and posted by users.

Section 230 was enacted to regulate the new communication environment created by the Internet. Before the Internet, it was not easy to put ideas before the public. You had to go through a content publisher (work for a newspaper or TV station or write a letter to the editor) or be a publisher yourself. Today, Internet sites feature content created by users, whether on message boards like Reddit, social media sites like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Instagram, or consumer review sites like Yelp. The rise of these forums raised two questions. First, under what circumstances could or should websites be responsible for material posted by users? Second, under what circumstances could those websites be required to keep user-posted content they found objectionable?

Section 230 was designed to address these issues. Under Section 230, platforms must set up procedures to remove “material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable” and act in “good faith” when moderating content. As defined by the courts, examples of bad faith include banning users based on their political beliefs alone (such as a website owned or influenced by a particular political party banning posts published by the opposing party or posters that support the opposing party) or removing posts from competing companies (such as Facebook banning all ads for Twitter). The content-removal procedures in Section 230 are used frequently. The plot below shows the number and types of posts that Facebook investigated and removed from its website in the Fall of 2022.

‍

How is Section 230 different from the laws that govern print or broadcast media?

Standard law defines book publishers, newspapers, and TV and radio broadcasters as having full control over their content. As a result, it’s the law’s intent that these companies are held liable for all content that they publish. If they publish false, obscene, or defamatory content, they can be fined, taken to court, or, in the case of TV and radio stations, even lose their broadcasting license.

Section 230 creates a different set of rules for internet hosts. Hosts don’t have to check everything posted on their websites – they only have to respond if someone complains. Section 230’s impact goes beyond social media websites. For example, the home rental site Airbnb was protected by Section 230 when hosts improperly listed their short-term rentals in communities where rentals were prohibited by local laws. The court found that Airbnb was not liable for the illegal listings, and the responsibility fell on the hosts for not following local laws.

One exception to Section 230’s provisions is that internet platforms are legally liable for posts that involve sex trafficking. They can be held responsible for revenge porn (sexually explicit images posted by a former partner without the subject’s consent). It is also illegal for platforms to post, promote, or publish nonconsensual sexual images, targeted harassment, and terrorist communications.

What are the arguments against Section 230?

Some opponents of Section 230 believe that it gives platform owners too much power to decide which posts are removed, limiting the free speech of users. Thus, when Twitter, Facebook, and other social media sites suspended then-President Trump’s accounts in early 2020, some conservative commentators argued that he was being removed because platform owners disagreed with his political views and claims about the 2020 election, not because his comments were dangerous or defamatory.

Another consequence of Section 230 is that platforms can take down content without allowing the poster to appeal their decision. Thus, former President Trump had little or no way to appeal the decisions that removed his access to Facebook and Twitter. The same is true when platforms refuse to remove content. People who claim they are victims of online harassment, defamation, and other harmful conduct have few options to appeal a platform’s decision that these posts are allowable. Similarly, if Airbnb removes a rental because they believe the owner has violated the site’s rules, there is no higher authority or forum where the owner can ask for redress.

Another complaint about Section 230 is that it does not do enough to punish, impose monetary fines, or otherwise require specific follow-on communications by internet platforms for distributing information that is later found to be misleading or false. For example, a Facebook post might falsely claim that a new drug can cure cancer. Until Facebook is notified about the falsehood and reviews it, the website is not responsible if people read the post, forgo conventional treatment, and take the drug instead.

How do other nations regulate the Internet?

In some cases, other nations place a higher level of responsibility on the owners of internet platforms to monitor the content posted to their websites and to remove illegal content. The European Union’s E-commerce Directive allows internet intermediaries that are “mere conduits” broad immunity similar to Section 230. However, this provision does not apply to most social media websites, who must promptly take down illegal content once they receive notice. In addition, under the EU regulations, platforms have some responsibility for monitoring information posted to their websites and removing false information or hate speech if no one complains. India’s Information Technology Act of 2000 requires the removal of illegal content within 36 hours of notice and only provides immunity to those who do not initiate content, modify content, or determine who sees the content.

What are the proposals for reforming Section 230?

Proposals for reforming Section 230 generally narrow the broad immunities that platform owners currently enjoy. For example, one proposal would make platform owners legally liable if their decisions about keeping or removing content deviate from the criteria stated in their written policies. For example, in the case of removing former President Trump from Twitter, the new standard would allow the former President to take Twitter to court, where a judge or jury would decide whether Twitter had acted appropriately.

Additionally, some propose bringing US law closer to the EU standard, altering the “knowledge” standard to a “should have known” standard. This change would hold platforms accountable if they do not review information for veracity even before someone complains. Thus, in the earlier example of a Facebook post about a fake drug, the new standard would make Facebook liable if people were harmed by the useless drug. The Santa Clara Principles, proposed by a group of academics, civil rights advocates, and tech companies, provide a set of guidelines for content moderation, including greater transparency in the moderation process and an appeals process for people who believe that a platform has acted incorrectly.

There are ongoing court challenges to Section 230. In the case of Force v. Facebook, the plaintiff argues that Facebook should be held liable for the sale of firearms on its platform, despite Section 230 immunity. Similarly, in the case of Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute, the plaintiffs argue that social media companies should be held responsible for violating users’ First Amendment rights when they remove a post. If courts ruled against Section 230 immunity in cases like these, it could significantly change current policy by holding platforms accountable for a wider range of potentially harmful content on their platforms. This shift could pressure companies to moderate their content more closely, potentially limiting the free speech protections that Section 230 was designed to uphold.