The article argues that recent executive overreach and politicization have severely undermined established norms of U.S. civil-military relations. To restore professional standards, the incoming Congress must actively exercise its oversight powers, moving beyond mere criticism to demanding transparency in defense policy and personnel decisions. Key reforms include enforcing meritocratic promotion processes, requiring documented justification for senior officer removals, and preventing the partisan use of the military. These actions are crucial for bolstering public trust and ensuring the military remains a nonpartisan instrument of civilian control.
How to Improve the Trump Administration’s Tepid Proposal to Remove Race and Ethnicity from the Decennial Census
English Summary
The Cato Institute argues that the Census Bureau's proposed removal of race and ethnicity questions from the decennial census is a necessary and overdue step to eliminate state-sanctioned racial discrimination. The authors argue that classifying people by race is inherently unethical, citing historical abuses like the use of racial data in genocide, and that the Constitution guarantees equal rights, not equal outcomes. They criticize current federal racial classification standards as absurd, noting that the definitions are often historically inaccurate and that the data collection process is merely a public opinion poll. Policy-wise, the article advocates for the complete elimination of all mandatory race and ethnicity data collection by the government, arguing that such data serves no useful purpose and only enables potential discrimination.
中文摘要
凱托學會（The Cato Institute）主張，人口普查局提議從十年一次人口普查中移除種族和族裔問題，是消除國家認可的種族歧視所必須且應當採取的步驟。作者們認為，依種族分類本身就是本質上不道德的行為，並援引歷史上的濫用案例，例如種族數據在種族滅絕中的應用。他們指出，憲法保障的是平等權利，而非平等的結果。文章批評現行的聯邦種族分類標準是荒謬的，指出其定義往往歷史不準確，且數據收集過程實質上僅為一次民意調查。從政策層面來看，本文倡導政府徹底取消所有強制性的種族和族裔數據收集，認為此類數據並無實用目的，反而可能助長潛在的歧視行為。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
The article argues that Donald Trump's unique and prolonged lame-duck period, coupled with domestic political pressures, makes him dangerously prone to international instability. Having exhausted major diplomatic gambits, Trump is expected to channel his energy into high-stakes, unilateral actions, primarily targeting adversaries such as Iran and Cuba. These potential actions—ranging from fresh strikes in the Persian Gulf to attempts at regime change—carry a significant risk of destabilizing regional security and triggering a global economic crisis. Policymakers must anticipate this pivot to high-risk foreign policy to mitigate potential international flare-ups.
-
3.
The Blue Wave signals significant voter frustration with cost of living and inflation, giving Congress a mandate to prioritize affordability and cost-reduction measures. Economically, the rapid build-out of AI data centers is creating localized stress, driving up skilled labor wages and straining resources, while also facing constraints from power grids and potential local regulatory backlash. Policymakers must manage this 'sequencing issue'—addressing rising costs before full productivity gains from AI can materialize—and anticipate shifts in global data center infrastructure as the market matures.
-
4.
The built environment workforce, comprising 15.3 million workers across 95 occupations, is foundational to modern infrastructure and economic stability. While highly paid, the workforce suffers from significant demographic imbalances, being disproportionately white and male, and often lacking clear career progression pathways. To prevent project delays and cost overruns, policy must mandate that capital asset owners treat labor market forecasting as core to project planning. Strategic interventions are required to strengthen career pipelines through robust apprenticeships, improve retention, and actively recruit younger and more diverse workers.
-
5.
The U.S. is drastically reducing core funding to multilateral institutions, withdrawing from numerous bodies due to perceived misalignment with national interests. While multilateral channels offer critical advantages—such as pooling resources for global public goods and managing risk in fragile settings—the U.S.'s funding remains heavily 'earmarked,' which effectively 'bilateralizes' the system and undermines shared burden-sharing. This practice, coupled with deep cuts, diminishes the multilateral system's effectiveness and efficiency, particularly in humanitarian aid. Policy recommendations suggest the U.S. must adopt a systematic, published strategy for aid channel choice and shift from restrictive project-level earmarking to broader thematic funding to restore global cooperation.