Trump Should Pursue a Softer Approach to Reform

President Trump understands that he can’t achieve reform—on immigration, government spending, higher education, or anything else—without using force. Deporting illegal immigrants requires physically removing them from the country; curbing waste requires firing workers; and undoing the ideological capture at universities requires slashing funding.

Christopher Rufo writes that while Trump is right to focus on these priorities, he could benefit from using softer tactics. The Left has gained traction in framing deportations, for instance, as a cruel act against helpless victims.

“Rather than making graphic displays of force,” Rufo argues, “the administration should change incentives, rewrite laws, depersonalize its enforcement actions, and turn each element of reform into an abstraction.” Read his suggestions for how the administration could adopt a less blunt, more strategic approach.

Omar Sultan Haque spent 23 years at Harvard. He stopped teaching there last year, discouraged by what he calls “radical left-wing bias” and “racial and gender discrimination.”

Christopher F. Rufo and Ryan Thorpe spoke to Haque about the university’s shift from truth-seeking to ideological conformity, its DEI initiatives, and its battle with the Trump administration.

“Today, Harvard resembles an aging billionaire secluded in his mansion, consumed by narrow moral obsessions, clutching his treasures, disconnected from a world he scorns,” Haque says. Read the interview here.

House Republicans introduced proposals last week to reform Medicaid, including encouraging states to restrict enrollment. But because the proposals do little to curb states’ incentive to claim more federal funding, they’re unlikely to achieve any real cost savings.

There’s a better approach, Chris Pope believes. “States that claim more than $20,000 in federal Medicaid funds per poor resident should no longer be permitted to claim additional matching funds for further expansions of benefit packages or eligibility, or extraordinary increases in payments for services undertaken without express authorization by Congress,” he writes.

In Trump v. CASA, Inc., the Supreme Court could decide the future of universal injunctions—district court orders that block the enforcement of laws nationwide. These measures have made it increasingly difficult for presidents to carry out their agendas.

Michael A. Fragoso, former chief counsel to Senator Mitch McConnell, explains what’s at stake, and why Congress might have the final say.

“So, it doesn’t ‘shock the conscience’ that a school official can literally kick objective reality to the curb, and nurture that totalitarian mindset in a confused child and keep it all from the parents?”

Photo credits: Win McNamee / Staff / Getty Images News via Getty Images