We promote free market public policies. We get government out of the way.
VA/DC
Joined December 2009
- Tweets6K
- Following288
- Followers1.9K
- Likes1.2K
Businesses should be able to succeed or fail based on how they perform, not how much the government has invested in them. A free market means letting businesses compete on their own, not having the government take a bigger seat at the table.
The goal should be simple: protect national security without blocking promising medicines from reaching American patients.
Broad biotech restrictions risk doing exactly that.
Trump administration proposes new curbs on China biotech deals axios.com/2026/10/23/trump-c…
Protecting inventors is a founding American principle. Strong patent rights give innovators the incentive to build what comes next.
As @newtgingrich puts it:
“We want to encourage inventors. We want to give them legal protection so they have an incentive.”
The Market Institute retweeted
America shouldn’t have to choose: national security or medical advancements.
@USTreasury’s proposed COINS Act regulations risk sidelining American innovators while foreign competitors pursue the next generation of breakthroughs.
U.S. leadership in biopharmaceutical innovation, and the patients counting on tomorrow’s cures, depend on continued access to promising science, regardless of where it comes from.
nosocializedmedicine.org/cas…
Exactly right. America doesn’t beat China by cutting our innovators off from promising science.
Target real national security threats. Keep American biopharma free to compete—and win.
The COINS Act rightly targets investments that could strengthen China's military capabilities. Expanding restrictions broadly to biopharma risks driving valuable drug discoveries to European competitors instead of U.S. companies. That's not protecting American leadership.
endpoints.news/treasury-expe…
China is a serious competitor in biotech. That’s exactly why the U.S. shouldn’t respond by tying the hands of American innovators.
Treasury should narrowly target genuine national security threats—not restrict deals that can bring promising new medicines to U.S. patients.
America wins by outcompeting China, not through protectionism.
Biotech investment is the new front in the U.S.-China trade fight politi.co/4Bl2VJz
Prediction markets do something remarkably useful:
They turn uncertainty into a price.
That means better information, better forecasting, and new ways for businesses to manage risk.
There’s a lot more potential here than people realize.
fortune.com/2026/10/19/predi…
If your economic development strategy is attracting companies with one hand and threatening them with massive lawsuits with the other, don’t be surprised when businesses choose another state.
Sanity is an economic policy too.
reuters.com/business/meta-or…
You can’t say “we’re open for business” while simultaneously creating a legal environment where one lawsuit can cost a company tens of billions of dollars.
Businesses tend to notice contradictions like that.
A judge in New Mexico ordered Meta to pay a $25 billion judgment for deceiving users about how it handled their personal data, a penalty the state’s attorney general said appeared to be the largest of its kind ever issued. wapo.st/4BzR36G
States say they want jobs, investment, and innovation, but then threaten companies with penalties big enough to make doing business there irrational.
You don’t build a strong economy by chasing businesses away.
A judge orders Meta to pay $25 billion after a jury finds the company had misled consumers about data privacy. nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/m…
America’s defense startups are building everything from AI-powered fighter pilots to next-generation rocket engines. But why invest millions in breakthrough technology if competitors can copy it without consequences?
If we want American companies to keep pushing the limits, they need to know their ideas are worth protecting. Strong patent rights help make that possible and give investors a reason to bet on the next big breakthrough.
The Market Institute retweeted
Decisions about what kids see online belong to their parents. Mandatory age verification shifts those decisions to the government and puts users’ privacy and free speech at risk, write Cato’s @dr_inserra and @jrhuddles in their new study.
ow.ly/hOTl50ZZ3cR
Washington sees an algorithm and immediately reaches for a regulation.
But algorithmic pricing can mean lower prices, better discounts, and faster responses to supply and demand.
Consumers could end up paying the price for lawmakers getting this wrong. From @RSI.
rstreet.org/commentary/consu…
Conservatives spent years warning about Lina Khan’s abuse of antitrust power. Now some want to keep the same machinery and simply point it at different targets.
That’s not free-market reform. It’s Khanservatism.
realclearmarkets.com/article…
