National Review's Dan McLaughlin argues that U.S. immigration policy must prioritize American interests and Americans. He contends that programs like asylum, refugee law, and Temporary Protected Status lack limiting principles and can foster resentment. McLaughlin suggests that these contentious programs should be reformed or abolished, asserting that the asylum system is often exploited. He proposes that a focus on American interests and values should guide decisions about legal immigration.
In parallel commentary, The Washington Post's Megan McArdle observes that academia faces a crisis of credibility due to its perceived political agenda, high costs, and the notion that degrees no longer adequately prepare graduates for the workforce. McArdle suggests that many academics are unaware of the depth of the problem or resistant to necessary reforms, clinging to outdated perspectives.
The Hill's Becket Adams points to declining public confidence in news media, citing Gallup data that shows a significant drop in trust. Adams attributes this decline to "decades of sloppy, one-sided reporting and a near-total disregard for audience feedback." The commentary highlights recent instances, such as CNN citing a satirical tweet about Senator Mitch McConnell, as examples of reporting that erodes credibility. Without improvements, the media risks shrinking to a niche audience is a potential outcome.
In a separate piece, The Wall Street Journal's Cory L. Andrews criticizes the use of lawsuits to settle debates surrounding the harms of teen social media addiction. Andrews argues that courtrooms are an inappropriate venue for resolving complex scientific questions and policy decisions, suggesting such matters are better suited for legislative action by Congress. He expresses concern that broad court-imposed solutions constitute governance rather than adjudication, especially when the evidence is not yet conclusive.