Incoming Feed Items

This Strong Towns member-submitted article was originally published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Florida-Puerto Rico Division newsletter. It is shared here with permission. In-line photos were provided by the writer.

In the past week or so, more precise contours have emerged in the legal contests over the lawfulness of the Trump regime's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act and the mechanics of the regime's deportation Venezuelans to CECOT, a prison camp in El Salvador. One way or another these fights will culminate in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Three issues have gained prominence:

1. whether detained Venezuelans may have their habeas petitions handled via class action
2. whether the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) permits Trump to declare Tren de Aragua (TdA) a foreign invasionary force
3. what steps constitute due process for removal of alleged TdA members under the AEA

Courts have already taken positions on each of these, clearly splitting over the first two and just beginning to address the third. While I have firm views as to the proper legal answers to questions (1) and (2), the fact and ways that federal district courts are disagreeing over them highlights that the Supreme Court might side with the arguments I reject. My purpose in this post is to give a deeper sense of the issues and to sketch the positions courts have taken thus far.

Kenin Spivak’s response to my piece, “Striking Iran Would Be a Mistake,” reflects a familiar but strategically short-sighted instinct within American foreign policy: the belief that forceful action against a dangerous regime, if justified morally or militarily, must also be wise geopolitically. But as I argued, and will expand upon here, the deeper question confronting the United States is not merely whether Iran goes nuclear, but whether the geopolitical structure of Eurasia becomes locked into a sinocentric configuration—one that fuses Iranian energy, Russian military-industrial depth, and Chinese strategic coordination into a single bloc capable of overturning the Western-led order.

The real catastrophe is not Iran’s enrichment centrifuges—it is China’s encirclement of the West.

Andrew F. Haughwout, Donghoon Lee, Daniel Mangrum, Joelle Scally, and Wilbert van der Klaauw

In the rapidly digitizing landscape of modern America, our homes, businesses, and national infrastructure are increasingly reliant on interconnected devices—collectively known as the Internet of Things (IoT). These devices promise convenience and efficiency, but they also pose an unprecedented cybersecurity challenge. From smart thermostats to baby monitors, each device can become a potential gateway for cyberattacks. The Biden Administration’s development of the U.S. Cyber Trust Mark (CTM) attempted to meet this challenge. While we take issue with many elements of that administration’s broader regulatory agenda, the CTM represents a rare case of smart, market-aligned governance.

The CTM is a voluntary labeling program for consumer IoT products that allows manufacturers to demonstrate they meet certain cybersecurity standards. But its true innovation lies not in the sticker slapped on a product box—but in the market incentives it unleashes. Unlike heavy-handed federal mandates, the CTM respects consumer choice, empowers corporate accountability, and opens the door to a new kind of risk-based procurement that strengthens our national cybersecurity from the ground up.

Australia’s Vice Chancellors are among the highest paid in the world, at a time when the institutions they oversee are plummeting down international rankings.

The new analysis, which is now before a Senate Inquiry, recommends sweeping changes to the governance of Australian universities, to deliver better results for students, greater scrutiny of universities’ accounts and a significant increase in transparency within the higher education sector.

The first recommendation is a cap on Vice Chancellor salaries at $430,000 per year, which would more than halve the pay of those currently earning the most.

The submission is now before the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee’s Inquiry on Tertiary Education Legislation Amendment (There For Education, Not Profit) Bill 2025.

I have ended up taking a lot longer to write up my biggest picture thoughts on the dollar than I initially expected. Partially this is because things seem to have stabilized- for now- and thus I didn’t feel the pressure to rush a piece out. Just yesterday China and the United States announced a tariff agreement- at least for the next ninety days. But the other reason I haven’t put out a big picture piece on the dollar is I have struggled to put all my thoughts on this topic into one piece. Before the coronavirus pandemic- when I was in a very different place in my life- my goal was to go off to undertake a PhD in law in Europe where I would write a three chapter dissertation on the international law of money. My June 2018 talk which I published in the newsletter last month provides the rough skeleton of my thinking. How do you get all of that into one piece?

The 55 groups congratulate the Prime Minister on his resounding election victory, which they say has delivered a mandate for “optimistic and ambitious” action on climate change.

The letter – published in several newspapers today – points out that, as well as being an existential threat, climate change has intensified the cost-of-living crisis, pushing up energy, grocery and insurance prices.

The signatories call upon the re-elected Albanese government to commit to a fast and fair phase-out of fossil fuels, in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.

“This is the opportunity of a lifetime for the Prime Minister,” said Mark Ogge, Principal Advisor at The Australia Institute.

“Anthony Albanese can be a leader who finally brings an end to Australia’s destructive fossil fuel addiction, while – at the same time – helping Australians through a cost-of-living crisis.

“The first and most important thing he can do right now is to stop the biggest, most destructive, most unnecessary fossil fuel project in the country: the expansion of the North West Shelf gas export terminal.

“This project would release more than four billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.

“It would also allow the ongoing destruction of one of Australia’s and the world’s greatest cultural treasures – the 40,000-year-old Murujuga rock engravings. These are eight times older than the pyramids and are being ruined by acid gas emissions from the adjacent gas plant.

Thank you, subscribers, for your thoughtful questions! I answered most and tried to address the main points of those I didn’t list. I apologize that I ran out of space!

I do these Q & As once a month. If you’d like to submit a question, become a paying subscriber. You can do that here:

Paying subscriptions are particularly appreciated right now. This newsletter is my main source of income for a family of four. Thank you for considering it!

And away we go…

Nina Boyarchenko, Hyuntae Choi, and Leonardo Elias

The modern financial system is complex, with funding flowing not just from the financial sector to the real sector but within the financial sector through an intricate network of financial claims. While much of our work focuses on understanding the end result of these flows—credit provided to the real sector—we explore in this post how accounting for interlinkages across the financial sector changes our perception of who finances credit to the real sector.

On this episode of After America, Elizabeth Pancotti, economic policy specialist and former advisor to Senator Bernie Sanders, joins Dr Emma Shortis to discuss what the second Trump administration is doing to the American economy.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 8 May 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

Order ‘After America: Australia and the new world order’ or become a foundation subscriber to Vantage Point at australiainstitute.org.au/store.

Guest: Elizabeth Pancotti, Managing Director of Policy and Advocacy, Groundwork Collaborative // @ENPancotti

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

Show notes:

Trump’s tariffs won’t wreck Australia’s economy. But America’s could be cooked. Dollars & Sense (April 2025)

The Trump Administration’s plan to reorganize the State Department is the most ambitious effort of its kind since the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998. Announced on April 22, it calls for reducing State Department offices from 734 to 602, a 17% cut. While the plan outlines a 15% cut across all existing bureaus, so-called “functional” bureaus, as opposed to the traditional geographic bureaus that oversee specific parts of the world, would in particular be slimmed down, especially those grouped under “J”—for example, the Under Secretary of Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights.

“J” (which confusingly used to be called “G”) has been around for a few decades. The world of J includes offices such as the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations (a white elephant created under Hillary Clinton), the Office of Global Criminal Justice, and the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL), mocked internally as “Drool,” that would either be drastically cut back or eliminated altogether.

A considerable amount of the media’s drive-by criticism of the Trump reorganization plan takes at face value the name of an office or what it seems to be doing instead of asking if the work could be done elsewhere, or not at all. The names of these offices, however, have absolutely nothing to do with the work they actually do, much less the tangible value they provide in advancing an America First foreign policy.

Subways for stormwater:  Another subsidy for cars and contributor to high household costs.

In Seattle, cars and trucks; roads and parking lots are responsible for half of stormwater volumes, and contribute most to toxic runoff, but pay nothing for an extremely expensive subway to keep their waste from polluting sensitive waterways.

Instead, the cost of sewage subways gets build to urban households, many of whom don’t even drive.

Seattle’s putting the finishing touches on a new 2.7 mile subway connecting some of its hippest neighborhoods between Wallingford and Ballard.  Built at a cost of about $700 million, this shiny new 18 foot, 10 inch diameter tunnel is big enough for a standard single track urban train.  No, this isn’t unexpected progress on the region’s long delayed “Sound Transit 3” plan.  Alas, this tunnel will only carry waste-water.