Keeping Up

THB Insider #14

Doge ball.

There is a lot going on right now. Here are some links to readings that have helped me to make better sense of this moment in U.S. politics, in areas that overlap with my expertise.

Energy Policy

• David Theilen, who writes at Liberal and Loving It, has a brilliant analysis of Colorado’s energy policy, which has broad applicability beyond my home state. His top three recommendations:

  • Stop all efforts to add wind generation.

    • Do use the existing wind turbines until they wear out.

  • Replace all coal plants with CCGT as quickly as possible.

  • Start building 7 Korean nuclear plants.

  • My view: Read the whole thing.

• IEA has a new and highly optimistic new report on nuclear power around the world — The Path to a New Era for Nuclear Energy:

  • “Nuclear energy is a well-established technology that has provided electricity and heat to consumers for well over 50 years but has faced a number of challenges in recent years. However, nuclear energy is making a strong comeback, with rising investment, new technology advances and supportive policies in over 40 countries.”

Debate Over the U.S. Agency for International Development

• At Just Security, Tess Bridgeman has a smart and informed answer to the question — Can the President Dissolve USAID by Executive Order?

  • “The bottom line: while some functions delegated from the president to the secretary of state, and in turn to the administrator of USAID, could likely be pulled back by executive action alone, wholesale dissolution of the agency or formal transfer of functions provided by Congress would require legislation.”

• The Congressional Research Service — one of the most essential institutions of U.S. policy expertise — asks and answers a similar question: Can the President Abolish, Move, or Consolidate USAID?

  • “Because Congress established USAID as an independent establishment (defined in 5 U.S.C. 104) within the executive branch, the President does not have the authority to abolish it; congressional authorization would be required to abolish, move, or consolidate USAID.”

• I encourage THB readers to clearly distinguish two fundamental issues related to USAID:

  • Substance: Are USAID policies and programs consistent with its Congressional mandate and overall U.S. policy?

  • Law: Under the U.S. Constitution, what are the legal and legitimate mechanisms for USAID oversight and reform?

  • One’s views on substantive issues do not mean that law can be ignored. Similarly, one’s views of the law do not mean that there are not substantive issues.

Tariffs and Protectionism

• Michael Strain, a colleague of mine at AEI, has an excellent paper on protectionism as policy, which takes both Democrats and Republicans to task — Protectionism is Failing and Wrongheaded: An Evaluation of the Post-2017 Shift toward Trade Wars and Industrial Policy:

  • “This paper evaluates the shift towards increasingly protectionist and nationalist policies carried out by the past two presidential administrations. In this paper, Michael Strain argues that the turn to such economic policies has not only been ineffective by its own standards, failing to raise employment and reduce America’s reliance on China, but also is more fundamentally misguided.”

• More specifically to Trump’s tariffs announced last week, The Budget Lab at Yale University has an informative report — Economic and Fiscal Effects of the February 2025 Proposed Tariffs on China:

  • “The Budget Lab estimates that the 10% China tariffs raise the overall price level by just over 0.1%, which is the equivalent of a decline in disposable income of $223 per household on average. The policy raises roughly $400 billion over 10 years, but less when the -0.1% lower level of GDP that results is taken into account.”

Science Policy Chaos

• A smart take by Nicole Barbaro Simovski, of Heterodox Academy, on the risks of the pendulum swinging too far the other way — Is academic freedom the baby we’re throwing out with DEI political litmus tests?

  • “The recent political actions show two things—both equally true. First, the actions show just how deeply and how widely DEI roots have penetrated our institutions, including our colleges, universities, and federal research agencies. Second, the actions show just how fragile academic freedom is. Getting rid of what the Trump administration defines as DEI at all costs could certainly come with the not insignificant collateral damage of destabilizing academia as an entire system, including academic research, federal granting and research, and college teaching. Academic freedom may be the baby we’re throwing out with the DEI political litmus tests.”

• My take: Having politicians of any persuasion decide what research is valid or not is a bad idea, examples:

  • CDC orders mass retraction and revision of submitted research across all science and medicine journals. Banned terms must be scrubbed.

  • NSF reexamines existing awards to comply with Trump’s directives

    Normal operations have been disrupted as staff look for offending words

  • Two points about the current chaos in science policy

    • First, the scientific and academic community needs to do a better job keeping its own house in order, or it risks others trying to do it for them. For years here at THB I have documented serious issues with scientific integrity that have gone unaddressed. What did we expect would happen?

    • Second, recall what I wrote above about the importance of distinguishing substance of policy implementation from legitimate legal processes. Both matter and are not trade-offs. Oversight and accountability are key functions of the legislative branch . . .

Congress: Hello? Anyone there?

• I endorse the views of Michael Baharaeen at The Liberal Patriot, who argues, The Presidency Has Become Too Powerful. It’s long past time for Congress to reassert itself.

  • “Many people seem to take a myopic view of the presidency: they want it to be powerful when their party is in charge but not when the other party has control. But a politics that holds different standards depending on who has power is neither right nor sustainable. The founders’ original intent was that the legislature, not the president, be primarily responsible for lawmaking, and they feared the concentration of too much power in the hands of just one person. It’s time Americans started reckoning with this history again.

    Still, the reality is that any reforms to the presidency will require at least one of the two parties to take active steps to curb these powers while they have it. A Republican president will never accept limits on his power from a Democratic Congress and vice-versa. But as America’s politics grow more polarized and the stakes of winning the highest office in the land become greater, it’s vital we address these questions now.”

  • My view: Congress — Do your job as described in the U.S. Constitution. That goes for members of both parties.

That’s a lot of stuff! Enjoy. I welcome your comments, questions, pointers, critique. I will make one firm request — This post is not an invitation to comment with cheerleading your favorite politician or party, or criticizing your least favorite politician or party, so keep the discussion respectful and substantive. I of course am happy to host a wide range of views on policy, politics, law, institutions, outcomes, and consequences. Disagreement and debate make THB a great venue for high-level discussion. Let’s keep it that way!

The easiest thing you can do to support THB is to click that “♡ Like”. More likes mean that the algorithm makes this post rise in Substack feeds and then THB gets in front of more readers!

THB is reader-engaged and reader-supported. THB’s aim is to highlight data, analyses and commentary typically missing from public discussions of science, policy and politics. A subscription costs ~$1.50 per week and keeps THB running so I can deliver posts like this to your in box several times a week. If you value THB and are able, please do support!