Incoming Feed Items

R.J. Pestritto is right that the removal fight matters. If the president cannot fire executive subordinates, it becomes difficult to see how he can “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” But Pestritto also says near the end of his essay that removal is only a first step, and he cautions against merely substituting judicial power for administrative power. That’s the point I want to pull forward here: restoring presidential control over the executive branch alone does not cure an unconstitutional delegation and a fusion of powers. We need to address the fact that most of the administrative state has no constitutional warrant—and also that restoring such awesome power to the president absent greater reforms might in fact do more harm than good.

The Trump Administration is asking the Supreme Court to overturn its decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), which held that Congress could limit the president’s power to remove members of “independent regulatory commissions.” In that case it was the Federal Trade Commission, but the principle has been applied to others like the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and, biggest of all, the Federal Reserve.

On this episode of After America, author and former speechwriter Don Watson joins Dr Emma Shortis to discuss the trajectory of the Trump administration, why Australia can’t avoid the rupture being brought about by the MAGA movement, and where Democratic leadership might come from in a “woefully” split party.

This discussion was recorded on Friday 30 January 2026.

A time for Bravery: what happens when Australia chooses courage is available now via Australia Institute Press. Usually available for $34.95, use the code ‘POD5’ to get $5 off – offer available for a limited time only.

Guest: Don Watson, author of The Shortest History of the United States

Host: Emma Shortis, Director, International & Security Affairs, the Australia Institute // @emmashortis

Show notes:

The Shortest History of the United States of America by Don Watson, Black Inc. (2025)

Our current agri-food system is unsustainable. It contributes to at least one third of global greenhouse gas emissions and agriculture is the leading driver of deforestation. Meanwhile, 20-40% of agricultural land is degraded, with declining soil health a key food security concern. 2.83 billion people cannot afford a healthy diet and in countries such as the UK, US, and Australia, around 50% of calories consumed come from ultra-processed foods.

Fake constitutionalism is increasingly becoming a problem in America. There is a marked tendency for public officials, political commentators, and those in the media to invoke bogus constitutional principles or bogus interpretations of genuine constitutional principles. They do this mainly to cast blame on their political opponents or to shelter the otherwise unacceptable behavior of their political allies. Fake constitutionalism undermines constitutional government by spreading misconceptions about what our Constitution means.

Regrettably, the First Amendment has become one of the most fruitful areas in which fake constitutionalism thrives. It is now commonplace for Americans—even constitutional lawyers—to make inflated claims about the protections afforded by the First Amendment, extending its scope far beyond the safeguards the American Founders had in mind when they debated and wrote this essential provision of our Constitution. The most recent case in point is the misplaced outrage over the supposed violations of the First Amendment involved in the arrest of Don Lemon.

From the fallout from Adelaide Writers’ Week, to our gun research referenced several times in Parliament, we had a busy start to the year. Watch just a few of our media appearances from January 2026.

The post January 2026 Media Highlights appeared first on The Australia Institute.

The soaring cost of educating high school students is driven by the unusually high number of Australian students who go to private schools and the unusually high prices of those private schools.

It costs Australian families $4,967 per year to send a child to high school, almost four times the OECD average. This figure is the average for all families with a child at high school. Families who send their children to private schools are paying even more, with fees now reaching up to $55,000 per child, per year.

Key findings:

• More than 40% of Australian high school students now attend private schools. If the current trend continues, most Australian high school students will attend private schools by 2055.
• Despite increasingly high fees, private schools don’t offer a substantially better education than public schools. Research shows gaps in test results are mainly due to differences in the socio-economic background of students, rather than the quality of the teaching.
• Private schools that have enough money to build swimming pools and horse stables still receive significant public support. At the same time, public schools face a funding shortfall of over $4 billion.

“Governments are throwing public money at private schools that clearly don’t need it,” said Richard Denniss, co-CEO of The Australia Institute.

Australian politics is often unedifying. But watching the latest spill-non-spill-spill (or Schrödinger’s spill, if you will – it being both on and not on at the same time) play out, while Sussan Ley’s team beg for their jobs in a WhatsApp chat group (this columnist is not on the invite list) seems yet another low point.

We have a Nationals MP challenging a leader without canvassing any votes (either a stalking horse move or just another Queensland MP tantrum) and a Liberal Party unable to work out if it has a challenger just yet, or if it wants to wait until the election review is released and that dust settles before stepping in.

The opposition has a stand-in shadow cabinet, while its MPs claim it is still auditioning for government. Branson is riding high on the discontent.

Meanwhile, the government preaches social cohesion. All while preparing to welcome the Israeli president – who posed for content signing bombs that were later dropped on civilians in Gaza – and having just passed hate speech laws that make criticism of Israel’s actions against Palestine a potential crime.

When Donald Trump addressed the World Economic Forum last week, he was draped in the tricolor semiotics of American mythology: a bright red tie blazing against a navy suit and a brilliant white shirt, the azure backdrop proclaiming “World Economic Forum” in relentless repetition.

“We are the hottest country in the world,” he declared, as actual temperatures prepared to plummet toward record lows. Yet this apparent contradiction reveals not cynicism but rather a profound understanding of politics and human nature. Trump operates in the order of symbolic truth, where the sign serves not to deceive but to reveal deeper patterns of meaning.

His appearance in Switzerland, swimming in the red, white, and blue of the American flag while surrounded by the gray neutrality of European technocracy, was no accident. It was rather a deliberate act of semiotic resistance, a refusal to surrender national identity to the homogenizing forces of globalist abstraction. Trump understands intuitively what others labor to learn: that in an age of mass communication, the skillful deployment of signs can restore meaning to a world threatened by semantic collapse. His color palette functioned as a vital reminder that symbols still possess power, that representation can serve truth rather than obscure it.

Approximately 10-15% of U.S. couples of reproductive age experience infertility. One response is to pursue in vitro fertilization (IVF), which is fraught with many negative ethical and practical implications. Another way is to get to the root cause of infertility. Shouldn’t that be the MAHA way?

President Trump expanded access to IVF with his February 2025 executive order. In October, he lowered costs for IVF and other fertility treatments.

Listeners vote on their favourite songs from the previous 12 months in what has become known as “the world’s largest musical democracy”. Over two million votes were cast for the latest countdown. In this wide-open playing field, the success of Australian artists is a source of national pride.

Since Spiderbait became the first Australian artist to top the countdown with their song Buy Me A Pony in 1996, a total of 16 Australian artists have clinched the number one spot. Although British singer-songwriter Olivia Dean took out this year’s honours, five of the top 10 songs were by Australian artists. This good showing, however, no doubt has something to do with the fact that voters were given a new option of filtering their votes to include Australian artists only. The reason Triple J introduced this initiative probably has something to do with the reality that last year’s countdown featured the fewest artists since 1996.

Over on the national ARIA charts, not a single Australian song cracked the top 20 in 2025 – in fact Taylor Swift has more songs in the top 40 than all Australian artists put together. It seems that ARIA’s initiative to exclude songs more than two years old (which would weed out evergreen hits) is yet to bear fruit.

So what gives? Surely Australians haven’t just stopped liking Australian music?

New data shows Australia’s housing and homelessness crisis is worsening, prompting calls to curb property investor tax breaks and build more social homes.   

The Productivity Commission’s Report on Government Services released today shows that 41% of people waiting to get into public housing are homeless or at risk of homelessness – up from 26% in 2015.

New ROGS data shows:

• Social housing makes up only 3.6% of all dwellings, down from nearly 5.7% in the 1980s
• 41% of the public housing waitlist is made up of households that are homeless or at risk of homelessness, up from 26% in 2015.
• Around 190,000 households are on the public housing waitlist, up from around 169,000 in 2024 and around 141,000 in 2018
• 18.3% of Commonwealth Rent Assistance households are in severe rental stress (paying more than 50% of income on rent), up from 8.1% in 2004.
• 27.4% of people using homelessness services are experiencing persistent homelessness (experiencing homelessness for more than 7 months in a 2 year period), up from 22% in 2019.

Separate ACOSS analysis shows:

The American Mind’s ‘Editorial Roundtable’ podcast is a weekly conversation with Ryan Williams, Spencer Klavan, and Mike Sabo devoted to uncovering the ideas and principles that drive American political life. Stream here or download from your favorite podcast host.

ICE Storm | The Roundtable Ep. 302

Close on the heels of Renée Good’s death, Minneapolis protestor Alex Pretti was killed in another altercation with ICE agents. Investigation into both incidents will hopefully make judgment easier in the court of law, but in the court of public opinion the situation looks grim. Losing ground on the media battlefield and in polls ahead of the midterms, Trump must consider the extent and nature of his mandate on immigration. This week, the guys take a hard look at the electoral reality and discuss what it means for the Right’s policy agenda. Plus: regulatory bloat (aka Hegel’s revenge) makes it hard to translate political will into meaningful action in the UK, while inclement weather and exploding trees (!) make for an eventful week in the U.S.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, America was a vigorous, growing nation, coming of age in a new era of technological and industrial progress, with all the strains and stressors that develop under periods of mass movements and economic growth. Thousands of people flocked to the United States in search of opportunities. Despite domestic challenges and opposition from the wealthiest, Americans were able to rally in favor of reforms including antitrust legislation and increased food and workplace safety standards.

The Sherman and Clayton antitrust acts, two landmark laws from the era, form the cornerstone of the federal government’s enforcement of antitrust policy. Rapid industrialization after the Civil War allowed corporations in sectors such as railroads, oil, steel, and finance to consolidate market control, suppress competition, fix prices, and wield outsized influence over workers and politics. Farmers, small businesses, and labor organizations argued that these practices distorted markets and undermined democratic governance.

But since then, the usage of antitrust law has varied over the last century. In recent decades, federal regulators have gravitated more toward a “laissez-faire” view of antitrust enforcement. This hands-off approach puts the amorphous concept of the “market” at the core of the government’s concerns instead of taking more proactive measures to prevent unfair monopolies.

For many the economy is something unfamiliar and confusing. Something that happens to us, influenced by forces beyond our control or understanding. Changing this is crucial to building real, inclusive economic justice. The economy should serve us, and not the other way round. That’s why we teamed up with volunteers from London to Scotland and […]

The post Community Economists: Insights from Community Conversations appeared first on Equality Trust.

The translation from Republic is a little more nuanced – Plato was obsessed with order and assumed everyone was just as obsessed as him, and carried that assumption through to a desire to hold office.

So Plato assumed everyone went into office for the same reason. The whole passage the paraphrased quote comes from goes something like this:

“For they are not desirous of honours. It is indeed necessary to add some compulsion and penalty on them if they are intending to be willing to rule. This is likely the reason that a willingness to go to office without facing compulsion is considered shameful. But the greatest penalty is to be ruled by someone worse if a person is not willing to hold office himself. It seems to me that people of propriety hold office (when they do) because they fear that outcome and that they enter into power not because they are going after something good or because they enjoy it, but because it is necessary and they are not able to entrust it to those better than themselves or their equals.”

Which, obviously, is not true. Some people just like power. Those same people enjoy sowing seeds of discord that they never have to actually solve, in order to keep it. They are able to do that, because many of us in the media work to make their offerings seem sane and normal.