Incoming Feed Items

Shortly after Linda McMahon was sworn in as the 13th Secretary of Education, she pledged to dismantle the Department of Education (ED) as its “final mission.”

Just eight days later, the ED announced a reduction in force (RIF), which impacts nearly 50% of its personnel, as part of a “commitment to efficiency, accountability, and ensuring that resources are directed where they matter most.” Terminated employees were to be placed on administrative leave beginning March 21. The department explained that when Donald Trump was inaugurated it employed 4,133 personnel; after the RIF and voluntary resignations, 2,183 workers would remain.

One week later, on March 20, Trump issued an executive order that proclaimed that “the experiment of controlling American education through Federal programs and dollars—and the unaccountable bureaucracy those programs and dollars support—has plainly failed our children, our teachers, and our families.” Closing the department, Trump observed,

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Greg and Elinor discuss some of the bogus claims about productivity, why giving fossil fuel subsidies to fossil fuel companies is a bad idea, and the latest Trump tariff news.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 12 June 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

Our independence is our strength – and only you can make that possible. By donating to the Australia Institute’s End of Financial Year appeal today, you’ll help fund the research changing Australia for the better.

Host: Greg Jericho, Chief Economist, the Australia Institute and Centre for Future Work // @grogsgamut

Host: Elinor Johnston-Leek, Senior Content Producer, the Australia Institute // @elinorjohnstonleek

Show notes:

Wealthy Australians are worried we might realise how rigged the system is in their favour by Greg Jericho, Guardian Australia (June 2025)

Australia Institute research, released more than a year ago, recommends Australia follow the French lead and do the same.

In May 2024, The Australia Institute’s Textile Waste report revealed that Australian shoppers contribute to fast fashion waste more than any others on earth, surpassing Americans as the biggest textile consumers, per capita, on the planet.

Fast fashion has grown exponentially in recent years, with the exploding influence of Chinese brands Temu and Shein. Both sell huge quantities of cheap, quickly made, quickly shipped garments all around the world. They’re manufactured using high volumes of polyester, a fossil fuel-derived fabric that is plastic.

Many end up in landfill within 12 months of purchase.

“As one of the world’s biggest consumers of clothes, shoes and bags, Australia should have acted sooner to reduce the mountains of textile waste in this country,” said Nina Gbor, Circular Economy & Waste Program Director at The Australia Institute.

“To protect the environment and Australian fashion brands, we need to drastically reduce waste at the source by penalising brands that mass produce incredibly cheap, low-quality clothing that is often worn just a handful of times before ending up in the bin.

“France has introduced laws which will tax fast fashion garments 5 Euros (approx. $9) each, which will double by 2030.

“The Australia Institute recommended a similar scheme for Australia more than a year ago.

How Trump, DOGE, and Project 2025 Are Turning the IRS Into a Tool of Authoritarian Rule

Editor’s Introduction: Hello readers, it's Nathan Tankus and I am very happy to bring to you the first in a long multi-part series on the IRS spearheaded by Anisha Steephen. Anisha worked for the United States Treasury from 2021 through January  2025. They concluded their tenure around the time Fiscal Assistant Secretary David Lebryk was pushed out of government. Because of their specialization in economic and tax issues, they were the perfect person to take on investigating what has been going on in the Internal Revenue Service and providing the big picture understanding Notes on the Crises readers need about what’s going on.  

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.

Battle: Los Angeles | The Roundtable Ep. 271

This week, special guest Peachy Keenan rounds out the cast with a report from LA, where riots are breaking out (again). Governor Gavin Newsom failed to gain control on the ground, so Trump inserted himself and the National Guard to enforce law and order. Meanwhile, it’s not news that Trump and Elon’s bromance has concluded in a spectacular social media exchange, but Elon’s public tailspin in the aftermath merits a closer look. Plus: advice to law-abiding illegal immigrants (and to Elon), as well as media recommendations to help you escape the insanity of daily politics.

Recommended reading:

Domestic Extremist: A Practical Guide to Winning the Culture War

The US president has given the Albanese government the circuit breaker it needs to walk away from AUKUS.

Despite the frothing at the mouth in some mainstream media outlets this morning, Australians are unlikely to mourn the impending death of the deal.

Polling conducted for The Australia Institute during the election campaign found that 54% of Australians want a more independent foreign policy over a closer alliance with the United States.

An earlier poll found more Australians consider Donald Trump a greater threat to world peace than Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

“It’s highly likely Donald Trump will tank the whole deal,” said Emma Shortis, Director of the International & Security Affairs program at The Australia Institute.

“It was always a terrible deal for Australia anyway.

“It was conceived in secrecy and born in haste.

“Let’s face it, we were never likely to get any submarines – certainly not within a remotely workable timeframe.

“All AUKUS did was tie us ever closer to an increasingly volatile and aggressive America.

“Scott Morrison gave Anthony Albanese little time or choice but to support AUKUS. Now, Donald Trump has given him a golden opportunity to get out.

When you learn that the White House is keeping an eye on human rights violations in other countries, you probably imagine authoritarian regimes like those in Iran, China, or Burma. If I told you that it was the United Kingdom, only a small group of liberty-minded individuals might believe me. However, considering the critical state of free speech in Britain, it’s unsurprising that Donald Trump’s administration has expressed their concerns.

A representative from the U.S. State Department recently announced that the administration is monitoring the case of Lucy Connolly, a British woman who received a 31-month prison sentence in October last year due to a message she posted on social media. The announcement regarding Connolly comes just a month after the State Department issued a statement saying it was monitoring the case of Livia Tossici-Bolt, one of five British pro-life activists who were arrested for silently protesting outside abortion clinics. Connolly’s tweet followed the horrific murder of three young girls in Southport, which led to widespread rioting across the country. Two weeks ago, the 42-year-old’s appeal was rejected by judges. She is currently not set for release until August. 

Ever since “Liberation Day,” President Trump’s tariff policy has provoked spirited public discussion. Supporters and opponents have vigorously debated the economic and political consequences of the administration’s departure from our governing elites’ preference for free trade.

There is, however, another aspect of the question—an ethical component—that is suggested by Trump’s rhetoric, although it has not been fully developed.

“America First” is one of the famous slogans Trump often deploys in defense of his tariff policy. The president’s use of this phrase implies that his efforts to regulate trade are in the service of a preferential concern for America over other nations. In other words, on his own understanding, Trump is embarked on a patriotic trade policy. This observation forces us to consider the questions: What is patriotism, and what does it have to do with trade and tariffs?

Patriotism is a love of country and also, necessarily, a love of one’s fellow countrymen. Most human beings in our own time and throughout history have regarded patriotism as a natural and normal human emotion—but also as a virtue or a duty. In other words, normal people care for their country with a warm affection and are willing to, and feel an obligation to, subordinate their own interests to its well-being as circumstances may require.

Update: The answers to your questions are HERE!

Update June 12: I have turned off submissions because there are a LOT of great questions! I will try to post answers on Friday. I’ll also turn comments back on here for folks who were having interesting conversations with each other. See you soon!

Hello subscribers (and future subscribers!) Between the real-life Escape from LA sequel, the “Flag Day” fascist festivities, and fake feuds between sociopaths, this week has that sickening feeling I usually associate with elections, so I figured it was time for a Q & A. Got a question? Ask away! I hope to post my answers before the weekend.

For those new to this feature, here’s how it works:

1) To ask a question, join as a paying subscriber, and post your question in the comments section below.

Subscribe now

2) I will answer as many of your questions as I can in a separate article that will run a few days later. Sometimes I bundle up questions and address common themes. Try to keep your question brief!

The government is confronting major challenges in its second term. But despite what we’re often told, there is no shortage of solutions – governments just need the courage to implement them. On this episode of Follow the Money, we hear from four leading policy thinkers – Richard Denniss, Maiy Azize, Polly Hemming and Thomas Mayo – about making big, bold ideas a reality.

Find the What’s the Big Idea? series via our website or wherever you get your podcasts.

Our independence is our strength – and only you can make that possible. By donating to the Australia Institute’s End of Financial Year appeal today, you’ll help fund the research changing Australia for the better.

Guest: Richard Denniss, Executive Director, the Australia Institute // @richarddenniss

Guest: Maiy Azize, National Spokesperson for Everybody’s Home and Deputy Director of Anglicare Australia // @MaiyAzize

Guest: Polly Hemming, Director of Climate & Energy Program, the Australia Institute // @pollyjhemming

This article is read by Eunice Wong, a Juilliard-trained actor, featured on Audible's list of Best Women Narrators. Her work is on the annual Best Audiobooks lists of the New York Times, Audible, AudioFile, & Library Journal. www.eunicewong.actor

Text originally published May 26, 2025

Buy my new book “A Genocide Foretold"

Australians pick up the tab for billions of litres of diesel used by mining companies each year, under the fuel tax credits scheme.

It costs taxpayers more than $10 billion a year and is predicted to grow to more than $13 billion by 2028/29.

Not only is this subsidy a drag on the economy, it serves as a disincentive for fossil fuel companies to transition to renewable energy.

Fortescue Metals Chief Executive Dino Otranto is today calling for a $50 million cap on the amount companies can claim for the diesel they use.

“That would be a good start,” said Greg Jericho, Chief Economist at The Australia Institute.

“This scheme is nothing more than a fossil fuel subsidy – and the Australian government promised to scrap fossil fuel subsidies way back in 2009.

“The theory behind the scheme is that money raised by fuel excise goes to maintaining public roads, and mining companies operate largely on private roads.

“But if this is all about user pays, then how about we have a user pays scheme for the damage fossil fuel companies unleash in emissions, which make natural disasters more frequent and severe?

“How about they pay fair royalties or petroleum resource rent tax for Australia’s resources which they extract and sell at huge profit?

“This scheme costs Australia more than it spends on the Air Force and more than twice what it spends on foreign aid.

The best way to help the Tomago smelter, and every other electricity consumer in Australia, is to restrict gas exports.

Australia faces three options:

• One, leave the fate of the smelter and other heavy industry in the hands of the electricity market, risking its loss.
• Two, pay subsidies to Rio Tinto that have been estimated into the billions, increasing taxes or cutting services for other Australians.
• Three, make the multinational gas exporters supply gas at reasonable prices.

“The reason the fate of the smelter and gas exports are linked is because gas-fired electricity generators tend to set the price in Australia’s electricity market,”  said Rod Campbell, Research Director at The Australia Institute.

“As pointed out by Peter Dutton and Chris Bowen during the election campaign, Australia exports a lot of gas. If gas exports are limited, Australia’s wholesale gas price will come down and electricity prices will come down too.

“Aluminium businesses live or die based on electricity costs. So it looks like the Australian Government needs to choose between the interests of the gas exporters and aluminium manufacturers.”

The post Limit gas exports to save smelter appeared first on The Australia Institute.

I- Nathan Tankus- have never mentioned it to my email list, but in the fine print of my website I’ve always listed that I’m available for paid speaking engagements. This came out of people reaching out to me organically inquiring if this was an option. I did it here and there, but never in a consistent fashion and it has never been a regular revenue stream for Notes on the Crises. Now that I have a physical office in Manhattan and that I’m looking to expand- and events have slowed down since the most intense phase of the Trump-Musk Payments Crisis- I think it's time that I finally put it out more publicly that this is an option. I’m especially interested in this because I’m set up to push speaking/consulting revenue directly into more investigative reporting. I was concerned that this sort of thing would distract me from reporting at a crucial moment, but now I think we have turned the corner where the revenue will do more for Notes on the Crises reporting than the time would.

Early last week I started working on a piece on why the Federal Reserve didn’t step in during the Trump Tariff Financial Panic. The basic idea of that piece is simply that “repo rates”- the interest rate at which you can, in essence, borrow funds with treasury securities as collateral- didn’t move outside of the Federal Reserve’s target range. In the language of Wall Street, the Federal Reserve didn’t step in because the “money market” didn’t meltdown. The Federal Reserve, as well as market participants themselves, knew the money market didn’t meltdown. But how did they know a meltdown wasn’t happening?

In Crisis of the House Divided, Jaffa argued that once it became possible for Lincoln to foresee the end of slavery, he prepared himself for a role in emancipation, and even, in the Lyceum speech, gave a “prophetic account of the coming crisis” casting himself in the role of Emancipator! Lincoln warned of future dangers that would confront the nation. These would be internal dangers, principally those stemming from mob rule, or more precisely the “spirit of mob rule.” The lawless in spirit—those who tolerate lawlessness—will be prone to become “lawless in fact.” Lincoln, of course, without direct acknowledgement, referred to abolitionists, who advocated violating the Constitution in order to emancipate slaves, whereas Lincoln’s avowed policy was one of prudence, which was to observe strict adherence to the Constitution which, when understood in light of the principles of the Declaration, had put slavery on the course of “ultimate extinction.” The greatest danger engendered by the “mobocratic spirit,” Lincoln insisted, “which all must admit, is now abroad in the land, [is that] the strongest bulwark of any Government, and particularly of those constituted like ours, may effectually be broken down and destroyed—I mean the attachment of the People.” What can unite them? What is the remedy Lincoln proposes? A political religion!

Let every American swear, Lincoln pleads,

It was in the rural Victorian seat of Indi, encompassing Wodonga and Wangaratta, that independent Cathy McGowan was drafted by community group Voices of Indi.

In 2013, McGowan delivered the Liberal Party its only loss when she won the formerly safe seat from Sophie Mirabella.

The subsequent success of inner city “teals” – community independents like Zali Steggall, Monique Ryan and Kate Chaney – is evidence that Liberal neglect of classical-liberal and metropolitan voters has come back to haunt them.

But soul searching is due in the bush as well, particularly among Nationals. So far, they have been criticised for unforced errors (like quitting the Liberal-National Coalition only to rejoin it days later) rather than structural weaknesses, like their preference of mining interests over agricultural ones and their inability to win back seats lost since the 1990s.

Conditions are ripe for the Nationals to face challenges from independents on the same scale as those already faced by the Liberals.

And while Indi’s “Voices of” model of community organising and drafting candidates was an innovation, the country has long been friendly to independents.

Every time Oregonians are asked to pony up more money for roads, ODOT trots out a report saying that they’re definitely going to improve  their management and stop blowing through budgets.  And they’re doing it again.  In 2025, as Yogi Berra would say, “It’s deja vu all over again.”

There’s a multi-billion dollar transportation bill hanging fire in the Legislature.

ODOT’s managerial blunders and massive cost-overruns (quite logically) raise major questions about the wisdom of giving them even more money.

So the state throws money at management consultants, who generate a buzzword-filled report about how ODOT could improve.

The Governor promises that ODOT will implement these recommendations.

Voila!  Accountability.

That’s exactly what Governor Brown did just prior to the 2017 Legislature approving the last transportation package.  And Governor Tina Kotek and the Oregon Department of Transportation are following the same script in 2025, hoping a pledge to implement the consultant’s report will get everyone to overlook ODOT’s manifest managerial blunders and vote for the bill.

Here’s The Oregonian in 2017

On this episode, Paul Barclay is joined by former senator Christine Milne who brings her expertise and insights on how proportional representation and minority governments can be much more democratic, diverse, and help reduce corporate lobbying power.

This discussion was recorded on Monday 27 January 2025, and things may have changed since the recording.

Order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia now, via the Australia Institute website.

Guest: Christine Milne AO, Former Leader of the Australian Greens // @ChristineMilne

Host: Paul Barclay, Walkley Award winning journalist and broadcaster // @PaulBarclay

Show notes:

Power sharing in Australian parliament by Bill Browne and Richard Denniss, the Australia Institute (July 2024)

Representative, Still: The role of the Senate in our Democracy by Bill Browne and Ben Oquist, the Australia Institute (March 2021)

Last Tuesday Florida’s Board of Governors rejected Dr. Santa Ono for president of its flagship school, the University of Florida (UF). This came just one week after UF’s Board of Trustees (BOT) unanimously approved Ono. In what is typically a procedural process, it marked the first time in the 22 years since the Board of Governors was established that it had rejected a candidate in this fashion. It was a blow for not only Ono, but also UF’s BOT.

How did Ono nearly get approved as UF’s next president? The short answer is the almost childish simplicity of UF’s BOT, and especially its chairman, Mori Hosseini. They created a situation where only an establishment education administrator like Ono could be selected.

To the best of my knowledge, George Washington never explicitly offered his opinion of the First Amendment. It was proposed by Congress and ratified by the states during his first term as president but, per the Constitution, without his formal participation. Washington wrote to James Madison privately on May 31, 1789, stating, “I see nothing objectionable in the proposed Amendments. Some of them in my opinion, are importantly necessary; others, though of themselves (in my conception) not very essential, are necessary to quiet the fears of some respectable characters and well meaning men.”

The Constitution’s abolition of religious tests for office emancipated American Jews and Catholics from legal disabilities at the federal level, and decades before Britain did the same (this was only seven years after the devastating anti-Catholic Gordon Riots in London).

On this episode of After America, Dr Emma Shortis and Angus Blackman discuss Trump’s dystopian presidency, the administration’s renewed pressure on the Australian government to increase defence spending, and the end of the Trump-Musk bromance.

This discussion was recorded on Friday 6 June 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

Our independence is our strength – and only you can make that possible. By donating to the Australia Institute’s End of Financial Year appeal today, you’ll help fund the research changing Australia for the better.

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

Host: Angus Blackman, Producer, the Australia Institute // @AngusRB

Show notes:

‘Australia must resist US bullying to increase its military spending’ by Allan Behm, Guardian Australia (June 2025)