Stock

Scott Lincicome

When people hear the word “globalization” they probably think of giant container ships, wonky economic terms like “offshoring” and “trade deficit,” or geopolitical tensions and agreements. And, to be sure, Cato’s Defending Globalization project covers all of that stuff and more. Yet, as we explain in a new essay for the project, there may be no better symbol of real globalization—and its many benefits—than the restaurant down the street.

From the menu and the ingredients to the flatware and the staff, your local watering hole— even a good ol’ American Bar & Grill—is a tasty, real‐​world lesson in how the free exchange of goods, services, people, and ideas can enrich our lives in numerous and unexpected ways. And, as we show in the essay, there’s no shortage of these food‐​related lessons here and abroad.

One such example—an incredible one recently documented in Eater magazine—came across our desks shortly after we finished our piece, but it’s too good not to highlight here:

Every Friday at dinner time, a spry‐​looking Uncle Sam—stovepipe hat, stars‐​and‐​stripes suit, surprisingly brown beard—dances his way around the 11 sprawling buffet stations of ABC Restaurant. He twirls past a steakhouse featuring mounted longhorns, wagon wheels, and wood‐​paneled walls lined with U.S. license plates; a neon‐​accented diner serving fast food; and a McDonald’s‑style playground. Children mob the costumed figure, squealing with delight. Parents laugh, whipping out phones to capture the moment. It’s all‐​American, family‐​friendly dining—in Iraq.

With a flagship 1,800-seat location in the city of Erbil and a second 800‐​seat location in Sulaimani … ABC is one of Iraq’s most popular restaurant brands, with often busy dining rooms, large social media followings, and billboards all over. Families and friend groups across sectarian lines—Kurds, Arabs, Christians— flock to the restaurant. The offerings are immense, with over 600 dishes, including Turkish kofta, Iranian tahdig, and Italian American spaghetti. Guests pile their plates with steak, one of the most popular offerings, and Instagram their sushi, which ABC is largely credited with introducing to Kurdistan.

The article goes on to explain that ABC Restaurant Group started in the Netherlands, after its vacationing creator was inspired by a Florida Golden Corral. Featuring an “all‐​you‐​can‐​eat concept and unabashedly American decor,” the restaurant’s original location became wildly popular and ended up attracting attention from a visiting Iraqi Christian in 2013.

Fast forward to 2017, and the restaurant finally opened in Erbil, the capital of northern Iraq’s Kurdistan region, and was an instant hit, attracting 2,000 customers on its first day. Today, ABC’s staff is as diverse as its cuisine—chefs come from Ukraine, Nepal, the Philippines, India, and beyond—and it has sparked a thirst among locals for more exposure to non‐​Iraqi cuisines and cultures.

English pubs and wine bars are now common in Erbil, and sushi restaurants have proliferated. As one local business owner told Eater, “ABC was the first restaurant in Kurdistan that offered sushi. It was exotic, and something you could easily Instagram…. Now I wish the Asian food section had more dishes than just sushi. I love Asian culture, and I’d like to learn more about Asian food.”

Indeed, in a region marked by historical complexities and divisions, the ABC restaurant has emerged as a unifying space where people from different backgrounds—many of whom are part of a diverse influx of professional workers that’s turned Erbil into a regional business hub—can share an “American” meal with little regard for geopolitics or other possible tensions:

In ABC’s fantasy—in which Uncle Sam oversees culinary offerings from China, Mexico, and Japan—America stands in for a modern, globalized community. This isn’t a novel concept; businesses in emerging markets often emulate the U.S. in order to appear internationally integrated, equating Americanization with globalization. But the way this emulation plays out at ABC is entirely unique, capitalizing on northern Iraq’s distinct sociopolitical climate, Erbil’s thirst for international visibility, and the endurance of American soft power. Ultimately, ABC is a testament to how people around the world interpret currents like globalization and Americanization according to their own surroundings and desires, transforming the global into the local and personal….

Ultimately, just as visitors to Disneyland usually aren’t mulling the complexities of capitalism while riding Space Mountain, most customers aren’t actively thinking about American cultural imperialism when they dine at ABC Restaurant. Patrons flock to ABC for basic, human reasons. They want to bond with family and friends in a safe, welcoming environment. They want to explore. They want to enjoy life and feel like dignified members of a community both global and local.

As explained in Lincicome’s essay and video introducing the Defending Globalization project, we often forget the fundamental humanity of trade and migration that just so happens to cross political borders. Too many container ships and trade balances, and not nearly enough sushi and avocados. ABC’s story provides an incredible and entertaining reminder of this humanity—and the broader benefits of globalization here and abroad.

You can read our full essay on globalization and food here.

Peter Van Doren

Google Store certifies and distributes applications for mobile phones using its Android operating system and charges a percentage of the price that the application developer charges. Epic Games, the developer of the popular video game Fortnite, tried to circumvent the payments to Google. Google responded by removing the game from its application store. Epic Games sued. The jury trial starts this week.

How should we think about Google’s behavior? An article in Regulation provides some insight. Almost all of the apps certified and distributed by Google are free; Google earns nothing from certifying and distributing them. The revenue‐​sharing system subsidizes upstart apps that pay nothing for certification and distribution services. And paid apps pay little until their app becomes popular. The payments encourage improvements in the Android mobile operating system because Google has a permanent incentive to increase user engagement.

Even for those who favor activist antitrust policy, Epic Games’ claims are weak. The app store commissions are not a recent attempt to enhance Google’s market position. They stem from the launch of the app store in 2008 when there were 50 Android apps. There are now 3.5 million.

If Epic wins, Google could bypass the decision easily. It could charge for access to computer code (critical application programming interfaces) required for apps to function.

Why would Epic prefer that outcome? The likely reason is that under the current system, paid apps that achieve great success effectively subsidize upstarts, niche apps, and apps that are advertiser‐​supported. Once you are a successful game developer you would prefer not to subsidize potential competitors.

Scott Lincicome

Today we’ve published two new essays for Cato’s Defending Globalization project:

Money Across Borders: How Cryptocurrency Has Opened Global Exchange, by Nicholas Anthony, explains that cryptocurrencies have opened new opportunities for people across the world to move money across borders in an ever‐​increasingly globalized economy.
Food Globalization Puts the World on Your Plate, by Scott Lincicome and Sophia Bagley, shows that globalization is not just about trade agreements and container ships—in fact, there may be no better symbol of real globalization than the restaurant down the street.

These essays join the other seventeen that have already been published. This content—plus other multimedia features—can all be found on the main Defending Globalization project page.

Make sure to check it all out and stay tuned for future releases.

Eric Gomez and Benjamin Giltner

US support for Ukraine and the strain that effort places on the defense industrial base are prompting concerns about US arms sales to Taiwan.

The United States is Taiwan’s largest foreign weapons supplier. However, it has not delivered arms to Taiwan promptly. The press has widely reported a backlog of $19 billion worth of weapons that the United States has sold but not delivered to Taiwan. Unfortunately, the US government has not publicly released a detailed breakdown of the backlog.

We have attempted to shine a light on the Taiwan arms backlog to better understand what it contains and examine recent trends in US arms sales to Taiwan. This first of three articles explains our methodology and examines the mix of asymmetric capabilities, munitions, and traditional capabilities that make up the backlog.

Overview

According to our dataset and as shown in Figure 1, the US arms sales backlog to Taiwan is $19.17 billion.

Our dataset also categorizes arms sales as asymmetric, munition, or traditional. Table 1 displays the complete list of backlogged weapons by category.

We define asymmetric capabilities as weapons that are mobile, relatively low cost, and counteract Chinese military advantages without emulating them. Asymmetric capabilities are widely regarded as Taiwan’s best option for defending against a Chinese invasion. Ukraine has demonstrated the value of asymmetric weapons for countering Russia’s stronger air and naval capabilities. Asymmetric capabilities make up $4.2 billion or 22 percent of the arms sales backlog.

We classify munitions as reloads for various types of weapons which are difficult to categorize as either asymmetric or traditional. The munition category in our dataset does not include munitions that are subcomponents of other sales. It only includes sales where a munition was the primary item. For example, a July 2019 $2 billion sale of Abrams tanks includes thousands of rounds of tank ammunition. However, we code this sale as traditional because the tanks are the primary component of the sale. Munitions make up $2.8 billion or nearly 15 percent of the arms sales backlog.

Traditional weapons are more capable and flexible than asymmetric weapons on a per‐​unit basis, but they tend to have higher costs and require more advanced training. Typical examples of traditional capabilities are manned fighter aircraft, tanks, and surface warships. Traditional capabilities are well suited for responding to China’s coercive military activities.

However, traditional capabilities are expensive. This means that Taiwan cannot field as many of them. Moreover, traditional capabilities are easier targets in a high‐​intensity war.

Traditional capabilities make up $12.1 billion or 63 percent of the arms sales backlog. Notably, by dollar value, only two US arms sales—an $8 billion F‑16 sale and a $2 billion Abrams tank sale—make up just over 50 percent of the entire backlog.

This means that well over half of the US arms sales backlog to Taiwan are traditional capabilities that will eat up a large portion of Taiwan’s limited defense resources and have minimal utility in defeating a Chinese invasion. Going forward, the United States should prioritize selling Taiwan more survivable and affordable asymmetric capabilities and munitions to keep Taipei from running out of reloads quickly in a conflict.

Methodology

We used two data sources to determine the composition of the US arms sales backlog to Taiwan: the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) announcements of major arms sales; and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s (SIPRI) Arms Transfer Database.

The DSCA issues notifications of all major arms sales to foreign countries. Our dataset’s starting point is all DSCA notifications of major arms sales to Taiwan.

Next, we used trade registers from SIPRI’s data to determine which US arms sales were fully delivered to Taiwan. Arms sales that were fully delivered were removed from the dataset. Arms sales that SIPRI listed as partially delivered (e.g. 10 tanks out of 100) were kept in the dataset at their full dollar value.

At the time of data collection, the SIPRI data stopped at the end of 2022. We also conducted online searches of news sources to determine if any items SIPRI marked as not delivered were delivered after SIPRI collected their data. Any DSCA sale announcement from 2023 was kept in the dataset because SIPRI’s data contained no instances of a sale being announced and delivered in the same year.

In the rare instances where SIPRI’s data mentioned a weapon transfer that was not mentioned in a DSCA announcement, we did not add the instance to our dataset. We only kept items that could be traced back to a DSCA announcement.

DSCA announcements include sales of contractor services and spare parts for weapons that have already been delivered to Taiwan. We do not include these maintenance items as part of the arms sales backlog because the weapons they support are already in Taiwan. The second article in this three‐​article series will go into greater detail on these maintenance sales.

Finally, DSCA announcements do not always reflect the final dollar value of an arms sale, as these announcements are not finalized weapons contracts. Sometimes the final value of the sale is greater than what DSCA announces, and sometimes it is less. Our final backlog total is very close to the reported backlog total, however, so we regard the DSCA figures as close enough.

Taiwan Arms Sales Backlog Excel File

Jai Kedia

Research by Cato’s Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives (CMFA) shows that there is not much empirical support for the notion that the Fed can precisely control inflation.

Earlier this year, Cato published a paper that suggested monetary policy was the least important contributor to inflation, far behind both demand and supply factors in the economy. However, that paper used a simple approach (known as a VAR methodology) to study the sources of inflation. Cato CMFA’s newest research paper addresses this weakness and provides more robust evidence that the Fed cannot precisely control inflation.

Unlike the previous approach, the new working paper uses a sophisticated macroeconomic model, one that includes a variety of features to capture facets of the US economy accurately. The results are very similar to the first study—supply factors dominate the overall changes in inflation, both when looking ahead at inflation forecasts and when analyzing actual inflation in the US since 1960.

As Figure 1 shows, from 1960 to 2019, monetary policy has had a limited impact on inflation, increasing with the horizon of the forecast but never exceeding 5 percent. Supply factors— particularly goods market supply factors in the short run and labor market wage factors in the long run—affect most of inflation. Supply factors together account for 85 percent to 90 percent of inflation. As Cato scholars have pointed out for decades, monetary policy is particularly helpless in the face of supply‐​driven inflation.

The maximum effect the report finds is Fed policy contributing 10 percent to inflation. And this finding applies only to the post‐​financial crisis period and only at a very long forecast horizon. Conversely, monetary policy has a more significant influence on economic output, determining over 20 percent of its variation in the post‐​financial crisis period. This finding implies that while the Federal Reserve’s actions have minimal effects on inflation, they could lead to more substantial recessions.

When analyzing US inflation from 1960 to 2019 (see Figure 2), a breakdown into its principal shocks largely confirms established accounts of modern US history: namely, goods prices (presumably through oil prices) and labor supply shocks caused high inflation in the 1970s, and investment shocks significantly influenced inflation following the financial crisis. The analysis confirms that monetary policy has had a limited impact and that inflation has predominantly been a supply‐​side story.

Conclusions from this analysis are consistent with CMFA’s recommendations throughout the post‐​COVID inflationary spiral—contrary to conventional wisdom, people should stop looking solely to the Fed to actively manage the economy. At best, such active management will be ineffective, at worst it will be ineffective and crash labor or credit markets.

The CMFA’s prior article claimed, “Anti‐​inflationary policies necessitate a holistic approach and cannot merely rely on timely changes to the Fed’s policy rate.” The new analysis presented here confirms this recommendation with even more robust evidence.

For a detailed analysis, please see the Cato CMFA working paper. The author thanks Jerome Famularo and Nicholas Thielman for their excellent research assistance in the preparation of this essay and the working paper.

Jack Solowey

This week, the Biden administration issued a long‐​anticipated Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence (the “EO”). Given the breadth of the nearly 20,000-word document’s whole‐​of‐​government approach to AI—addressing the technology’s intersection with issues ranging from biosecurity to the labor force to government hiring—it unsurprisingly contains several provisions that address financial policy specifically.

Notably, the EO names financial services as one of several “critical fields” where the stakes of AI policy are particularly high. Nonetheless, by not providing a clear framework for financial regulators to validate the existence of heightened or novel risks from AI or to understand the cost of lost benefits due to intervention, the EO risks initiating agency overreach.

As a general matter, the EO largely calls on a host of administrative agencies to work on reports, collaborations, and strategic plans related to AI risks and capabilities. But the EO also orders the Secretary of Commerce to establish reporting mandates for those developing or providing access to AI models of certain capabilities. Under those mandates, developers of so‐​called “dual‐​use foundation models”—those meeting certain technical specifications and posing a “serious risk” to security and the public—must report their activities to the federal government.

In addition, those providing computing infrastructure of a certain capability must submit Know‐​Your‐​Customer reports to the federal government regarding foreign persons who use that infrastructure to train large AI models “that could be used in malicious cyber‐​enabled activity.”

While it’s conceivable that these general‐​purpose reporting provisions could impact the financial services sector where financial companies develop or engage with covered advanced models, the provisions most relevant to fintech today are found elsewhere in the EO.

Where financial regulators are concerned, the EO requires varying degrees of study and action. As for studies, the Treasury Department must issue a report on AI‐​specific cybersecurity best practices for financial institutions. More concretely, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development is tasked with issuing additional guidance on whether the use of technologies like tenant screening systems and algorithmic advertising is covered by or violative of federal laws on fair credit reporting and equal credit opportunity.

But the EO puts most financial regulators in a gray middle ground between the “study” and “act” ends of the spectrum, providing that agencies are “encouraged” to “consider” using their authorities “as they deem appropriate” to weigh in on a variety of financial AI policy issues. The Federal Housing Finance Agency and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, for instance, are encouraged to consider requiring regulated entities to evaluate certain models (e.g., for underwriting and appraisal) for bias. More expansively, independent agencies generally—which would include the Federal Reserve and Securities and Exchange Commission—are encouraged to consider rulemaking and/​or guidance to protect Americans from fraud, discrimination, and threats to privacy, as well as from (supposed) financial stability risks due to AI in particular.

The wisdom—or lack thereof—of these instructions can hinge on how the agencies interpret them. On the one hand, agencies should first ask whether existing authorities are relevant to AI issues—so as not to exceed those authorities. Similarly, agencies should ask whether applying those authorities to AI issues is appropriate—as opposed to blindly assuming AI presents heightened or novel risks requiring new rules without validating those assumptions.

On the other hand, to the extent agencies interpret the EO’s instructions as some version of “don’t just stand there, do something (or at least make it look like you are),” it could end up being the very thing that initiates misapplied authorities or excessive rules. Because the EO does not offer financial regulators a clear framework for confirming the presence of elevated or new risks from AI, or for minimizing the costs of intervention, it risks being interpreted more as a call for financial regulators to hurry up and regulate than to thoughtfully deliberate. In so doing, the EO risks undercutting its own goal of “[h]arnessing AI for good and realizing its myriad benefits” by mitigating risks.

For a chance to deliberate about financial AI policy questions, join the Cato Institute’s Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives on November 16 for a virtual panel: “Being Predictive: Financial AI and the Regulatory Future.”

John Samples

We have two kinds of political speech, the rhetorical and the responsible. Those who speak responsibly make concrete arguments and proposals that look to the ethics and consequences of what should be done. More often speakers engage in empty rhetoric that reveals and burnishes a politician’s brand without proposing anything real or engaging an opponent seriously.

Consider Senator Josh Hawley (R‑MO), who recently attacked the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United. The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, has been a consistent critic of campaign finance “reform” and an ardent defender of the First Amendment regarding campaign finance. Senator Hawley, in contrast, styles himself as a “populist” who opposes “the Establishment” and “the elites” and so on. Like every person favoring restrictions on the funding of political speech, Hawley favors “the people” against “Big Money.”

Does he really? Consider the concrete circumstances of the Citizens United case. A small number of people incorporated themselves as the “Citizens United” to engage in electoral advocacy. They made a film that harshly criticizes a leading Democratic politician, Hilary Clinton. At that time, it was plausible to think such incorporated groups were prohibited from spending money on such films.

If Hawley had his way when Citizens United was decided, the strong criticism of Ms. Clinton would have never been seen by anyone; it would have been censored by the government. If Hawley had his way now, the harsh criticisms of leading politicians by incorporated groups of individuals would also never be seen.

Sometimes political rhetoric undermines its speaker. Hawley’s rhetoric on Citizens United reveals him to be the best friend the Hilary Clintons of the world ever had. Sounds like Senator Hawley is real populist to me!

Colleen Hroncich

In the post‐​Covid era, many schools cite every child having a computer as a selling point—even as young as first grade sometimes. But the Waldorf School of New Orleans takes a different approach. The school is technology free until eighth grade, according to Reginald Coleman, the school’s administrative director. They want to encourage imagination, independent thinking, and strong relationships, and they find technology at a young age gets in the way. Students begin using computers as research tools in eighth grade to help prepare them for high school.

The Waldorf approach is based on the work of Austrian philosopher and teacher Rudolf Steiner (1861–1925). Steiner visited the Waldorf Astoria cigarette factory in Stuttgart, Germany in 1919, and the owner asked him to establish a school for his employees’ children. The Independent Waldorf School opened that September, incorporating Steiner’s philosophy of human development and a focus on the whole child—head, heart, and hands.

The Waldorf School of New Orleans, which I was fortunate to tour recently, goes from nursery to eighth grade. The youngest children learn through activities that children typically love to do, including arts and crafts, life skills like cooking and gardening, creative play that includes a lot of freedom, and story time.

In grades one through eight, they still learn by doing, but the amount of structure increases as the kids get older. The school has a rigorous curriculum that incorporates the arts, academics, and hands‐​on learning throughout. The science curriculum covers chemistry, biology, physics, and more, using age‐​appropriate experiments. Language arts are particularly strong because storytelling and writing are important parts of the Waldorf model. This hands‐​on approach is also used in math, where manipulatives and stories are used to make difficult concepts more understandable. Many WSNO students move beyond Algebra 1 before high school.

There are two very special rooms at the Waldorf School of New Orleans that really set it apart from most other schools. The handwork room is where the students learn knitting, sewing, embroidery, cross stitch, and more. In addition to being useful skills, handwork helps encourage a creative perspective while developing dexterity, spatial concepts, and even math abilities. The music room is also remarkable. Every student studies music, starting with recorders in first grade and moving on to stringed instruments in fourth grade. They also sing and learn to read music.

Students have the same teacher for their main subjects from first through sixth grade, which Reginald says allows them to really know the children and their strengths and weaknesses. It also helps foster the school’s strong family spirit because the teachers and parents get to know each other so well. In seventh and eighth grade, students have different teachers who help prepare them for the transition to high school.

Reginald, who previously taught and led public schools, has seen the impact of the Waldorf approach on his own daughters. He says when his older daughter was in second grade, she was stressed about standardized tests that didn’t even count for anything. Now she’s thriving in third grade at WSNO and loves school. Reginald says the school doesn’t have attendance problems because the kids want to be there.

One constant challenge the school faces is funding—figuring out how to pay teachers and rent without having a tuition that is out of reach for most families. Reginald was happy to hear that broad school choice could be coming to Louisiana under the new governor. If it has a lot of flexibility so the school could retain its unique approach to education, he says a scholarship program could be enormously helpful as they want to pay their teachers more and lower the tuition. They also want to expand to eventually include high school. But all those things require more funding.

From a small beginning at a cigarette factory in Germany in 1919, the Waldorf/​Steiner education philosophy has spread throughout the world. Now there are more than 1,000 Waldorf/​Steiner schools in sixty‐​four countries with thousands of students learning at them. There are also many Waldorf‐​inspired schools that follow the general principles of a Waldorf model but aren’t officially linked to the program—including The Garden School and Gather Forest School in Georgia. As more states adopt flexible school choice programs, like education savings accounts, it’s likely that more families will have access to Waldorf and Waldorf‐​inspired schools.

Jeffrey A. Singer

Last March, I wrote about a recent episode of “Cops Practicing Medicine,” in which the Drug Enforcement Administration inserted itself into the medical management of opioid use disorder by proposing telehealth guidelines that undermined Congress’ intentions when it passed the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment (MAT) Act at the end of 2022. The act removed the onerous rules and regulations surrounding the “X waiver” that the DEA required health care practitioners to obtain if they wanted to treat addiction with buprenorphine. The DEA’s proposed rule requires that any patients initially begun on buprenorphine via telehealth must see the prescribing practitioner in person within 30 days. The rule limits the prescription to a 30‐​day supply. The cops are concerned that patients will “abuse” or “divert” the buprenorphine into the black market if they do not get personally inspected by the physician after 30 days. The DEA has delayed implementing the proposed rule until the end of next year.

Doctors who treat substance use disorder begged to differ from the cops and offered a second medical opinion.

Addiction specialists are concerned that the proposed rule will reduce access to buprenorphine treatment and will undermine lawmakers’ intent to make it easier for people to get treatment for opioid use disorder. Dr. Brian Hurley, president‐​elect of the American Society of Addiction Medicine, told STAT News, “I don’t want federal rules dictating to me when I have to cut somebody off a medication that, on the basis of the information available to me, is still appropriate for the patient.”

It already averages 26 days to get a new appointment with a primary care provider, so there is no guarantee a new buprenorphine patient can get an appointment within the 30‐​day window. It might be even more difficult in rural or other areas with primary care provider shortages. The proposed DEA rule is likely to abruptly cease treatment for many patients who have just begun treatment using telehealth. Shortened or abrupt cessation of treatment will very likely cause patients to resume non‐​medical use of opioids in the dangerous black market.

Now, a bipartisan group of US senators has decided to go with the second opinion. Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D‑RI), Lisa Murkowski (R‑AK), Marsha Blackburn (R‑TN), and Mark Warner (D‑VA) have introduced the Telehealth Response for E‑prescribing Addiction Therapy Services (TREATS) Act. The bill would allow providers to waive the in‐​person requirement. The senators argue that, in 2020, the DEA and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration allowed patients to receive buprenorphine via telemedicine without requiring them to see clinicians in person as an emergency measure during the COVID-19 pandemic, and there is no evidence that patients abused or sold the medication on the black market.

Buprenorphine is a weak partial opioid agonist, unpopular among recreational drug users. Studies indicate that most people who buy buprenorphine on the street are self‐​administering medication‐​assisted treatment with buprenorphine because they can’t get appointments for treatment.

A shortcoming of the TREATS Act is that it doesn’t overrule the cops’ 30‐​day supply rule. Clinicians, not cops, should decide how much buprenorphine to prescribe based on their judgment and knowledge of their individual patient’s circumstances.

Senators Catherine Cortez Masto (D‑NV), Thom Tillis (R‑NC), Tim Kaine (D‑VA), Shelley Moore Capito (R‑WV), Amy Klobuchar (D‑MN), Mark Kelly (D‑AZ), and Cory Booker (D‑NJ have joined the bill as co‐​sponsors. Representatives David Trone (D‑MD), Jay Obernolte (R‑CA), and Brian Fitzpatrick (R‑PA) introduced the bill in the House.

It is refreshing to see lawmakers follow the medical advice of addiction medicine specialists over the advice of cops.

David J. Bier

According to new data published this month, the Biden Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has removed a higher percentage of arrested border crossers in its first two years than the Trump DHS did over its last two years. Moreover, migrants were more likely to be released after a border arrest under President Trump than under President Biden.

In absolute terms, the Biden DHS is removing 3.5 times as many people per month as the Trump DHS did. These figures are important for understanding how each administration has carried out border enforcement.

During the Trump administration, DHS made 1.4 million arrests—what it calls “encounters”—in fiscal years 2019 and 2020 (24 months). Of those people arrested, only 47 percent were removed as of December 31, 2021, which includes people arrested by Trump and removed by Biden, and 52 percent were released into the United States.

Under Biden, DHS made over 5 million arrests in its first 26.3 months, and it removed nearly 2.6 million—51 percent—while releasing only 49 percent. In other words, the Trump DHS removed a minority of those arrested while the Biden DHS removed a majority. Biden managed to increase the removal share while also increasing the total removals by a factor of 3.5.

Again, the snapshot of outcomes as of December 31, 2021, overstates Trump removals because it includes the removals of border crossers arrested during the Trump administration but removed by Biden from January to December 2021. Unfortunately, we don’t have a snapshot of outcomes as of January 20, 2021, but another DHS report shows that as of March 31, 2020, Trump had removed just 37 percent of those arrested through 18 months of fiscal years 2019 and 2020. Overall, as of March 31, 2020, President Trump had failed to remove 1.2 million arrested border crossers who entered during fiscal years 2017 to 2020—1.1 million of those crossers were still not removed as of December 2021.

Of course, the absolute numbers of releases have been higher under President Biden, but that reflects much higher arrivals, not any meaningful change in policy.

The pandemic‐​era authority called “Title 42” had enabled Border Patrol since March 2020 to quickly expel most crossers to Mexico. That ended on March 31, 2023, which was when the new data for Biden’s term cuts off, so releases have likely been higher since then. But, as noted above, releases were also significantly higher during the Trump administration before Title 42. Of course, fluctuations will happen, but the point is clear: the Biden administration has not overturned immigration enforcement.

These numbers highlight how difficult it was even for the most determined administration in US history to expel everyone who enters illegally. This is yet another reason why it makes more sense to create policies that enable immigrants to apply to enter the country legally.

Knowing that there is still a high likelihood of having to release migrants who enter illegally, President Biden has created some legal pathways for immigrants. Unfortunately, his administration has capped these programs at such a low level that massive backlogs have developed, which has effectively shut down the processing of new applicants. President Biden should prioritize the removal of these arbitrary caps, which would enable more immigrants to enter the country legally and reduce illegal immigration.