Voice For Liberty

Author: Bob Weeks

  • Secret Deals, Foreign Investments, Presidential Policy Changes: The Rise of Trump’s Crypto Firm

    Secret Deals, Foreign Investments, Presidential Policy Changes: The Rise of Trump’s Crypto Firm

    (Unlocked gift link included)

    One-sentence summary: Donald Trump’s crypto venture, World Liberty Financial, has capitalized on his presidency by intertwining business deals, foreign investment, and favorable policy shifts in ways that raise unprecedented ethical and legal concerns.

    World Liberty Financial, a cryptocurrency company founded and largely owned by Donald Trump and his family, has rapidly grown into a global player in digital finance, leveraging the power of the presidency and Trump’s name for financial gain. Launched just before Trump’s inauguration to his second term, the company has been tied to secret deals, questionable foreign investments, and presidential policy shifts that have benefited its financial position.

    World Liberty courted crypto firms with offers that effectively amounted to paid endorsements, asking for multimillion-dollar payments in exchange for mutual coin purchases. Although some firms rejected the proposals as unethical, others accepted, leading to over $550 million in sales. Trump’s direct ownership through a family trust entitles him to a significant share of the profits, despite claims that the arrangement poses no conflict of interest.

    Trump’s administration has taken sweeping steps to relax regulation on crypto, disbanding enforcement efforts and filling key regulatory roles with industry allies. These actions have benefited World Liberty, particularly following announcements like a federal crypto stockpile that caused price spikes in assets the firm had invested in.

    Foreign investors from countries including Israel, Hong Kong, and the UAE have bought into World Liberty’s coin, in what some see as a workaround to legally support Trump’s political aspirations. Some of these investors have faced U.S. regulatory scrutiny or are seeking U.S. approvals, raising further conflict concerns.

    Trump’s shift from crypto skeptic to advocate was accelerated by campaign donations from the industry and the family’s marginalization from mainstream financial systems post-January 6. His sons, Eric and Donald Jr., now actively promote and operate World Liberty alongside controversial partners, including individuals with checkered pasts in business and crypto.

    The firm’s tactics include currency swaps with smaller startups, where World Liberty profits from selling its coins while offering implicit Trump endorsements. These moves are often obscured from the public, raising questions about transparency.

    Recent developments have included Trump policy announcements that coincided with market gains in cryptocurrencies owned by World Liberty, such as Ether. The firm has also launched a stablecoin, USD1, with plans to market it via Binance, whose founder, convicted of federal crimes, is reportedly seeking a presidential pardon.

    Despite bipartisan ethical alarms and a failed Democratic attempt to restrict Trump family participation in stablecoin markets, World Liberty continues to thrive. Its executives, blending official and commercial roles, now enjoy privileged access to the White House, underscoring the unprecedented convergence of Trump’s presidential powers and private crypto enterprise.

    Lipton, Eric, et al. “Secret Deals, Foreign Investments, Presidential Policy Changes: The Rise of Trump’s Crypto Firm.” The New York Times, 29 Apr. 2025, www.nytimes.com/2025/04/29/us/politics/trump-crypto-world-liberty-financial.html.

    Unlocked gift link:

    Key Takeaways:

    • Trump and his sons own a majority stake in World Liberty Financial and stand to gain hundreds of millions through cryptocurrency ventures.
    • World Liberty has sought multimillion-dollar payments from crypto startups in exchange for mutual investments and implied endorsements.
    • The company has received significant investment from foreign nationals, raising questions about indirect political contributions.
    • Trump has reversed his anti-crypto stance, aligning U.S. policy with the interests of his company and supporters.
    • Several policy changes, including a federal crypto reserve and stablecoin regulation, have directly benefited World Liberty’s holdings.
    • Ethical concerns have been raised in Congress but have not impeded World Liberty’s expansion or influence.
    • The company’s partners include individuals previously accused or convicted of financial misconduct, some of whom are now seeking clemency.

    Most Important Quotations:

    • “Everything we do gets a lot of exposure and credibility.” – Zachary Folkman, World Liberty executive
    • “It’s a black spot on our industry.” – Andre Cronje, founder of SonicLabs
    • “Trump wants to make a lot of money in crypto.” – Konstantin Kuznetsov, World Liberty investor
    • “We can join in this wave.” – Konstantin Kuznetsov
    • “You could put them in a boardroom at Goldman Sachs, and they’re going to smoke the people in the room.” – Donald Trump Jr., on World Liberty partners
    • “Thank you Mr. President.” – Zach Witkoff, World Liberty co-founder, following White House visit
    • “The future is here, and it is so bright!” – Zach Witkoff, announcing World Liberty’s stablecoin launch

    Word count of summary: 797
    Word count of input: 7,888

    Model: GPT-4-turbo
    Custom GPT: Summarizer 2

  • Trump Versus 100-day Polls

    Let’s critically examine the claims made by Donald J. Trump in this post, focusing on his accusations against The New York Times, ABC/Washington Post, and Fox News polls, as well as his broader assertions about election fraud and media bias.

    Claim 1: The New York Times and ABC/Washington Post polls are “fake” and deliberately biased, with only 37% and 34% Trump 2024 voters, respectively, despite Trump receiving 50% of the popular vote.

    Fact-Check:

    • Context of the Polls: Trump is referencing approval rating polls conducted by The New York Times/Siena College and ABC News/Washington Post, which reported his approval rating at 42% and 39%, respectively, in April 2025. These polls also included samples with 37% and 34% of respondents identified as Trump 2024 voters, which Trump claims is evidence of deliberate bias since he won approximately 50% of the popular vote in the 2024 election.
    • Analysis of Sampling: Polls are designed to reflect a representative sample of the population, not necessarily the exact voter breakdown of a past election. The 37% and 34% figures reflect the proportion of Trump 2024 voters in these specific samples, which may differ from the election outcome due to factors like turnout, demographic weighting, or survey response rates. For example, nonresponse bias-where Trump supporters are less likely to respond-has been a documented challenge in polling during the Trump era. However, there’s no evidence that these polls deliberately underrepresented Trump voters to skew results. Both organizations use standard, transparent methodologies, including probability-based sampling and weighting to align with demographic and political characteristics.
    • Popular Vote Claim: Trump’s claim of receiving 50% of the popular vote is roughly accurate. In the 2024 election, he won approximately 49.9% of the popular vote (73 million out of 146 million votes, with final counts still being tabulated). However, approval rating polls measure current sentiment, not past voting behavior, so expecting them to mirror the 2024 election results is misleading. Public opinion can shift post-election due to policy decisions, economic conditions, or other factors.
    • Verdict: False. The claim that these polls are “fake” because of the proportion of Trump voters in their samples is unsupported. Differences in sample composition are expected in polling and do not indicate fraud or deliberate bias. The methodologies of The New York Times and ABC/Washington Post are consistent with industry standards, and there’s no evidence of manipulation.

    Claim 2: The pollsters should be investigated for “election fraud” because of their allegedly biased results.

    Fact-Check:

    • Definition of Election Fraud: Election fraud typically involves illegal activities like vote tampering, ballot stuffing, or voter impersonation. Conducting a poll, even if flawed or biased, does not constitute election fraud, as polls are private surveys of public opinion, not part of the electoral process. There’s no legal basis for classifying polling as election fraud.
    • Evidence of Fraud: Trump provides no evidence to support the claim that these polls were fraudulent. His campaign pollster, John McLaughlin, argues the polls are biased because they underrepresented Trump voters, but this is a methodological critique, not proof of criminal activity. Historical polling errors, such as underestimating Trump’s support in 2016 and 2020, have been attributed to issues like nonresponse bias or weighting errors, not intentional fraud.
    • Verdict: False. There’s no evidence that The New York Times, ABC/Washington Post, or Fox News polls engaged in election fraud. Polling inaccuracies or differences in sample composition are not equivalent to criminal acts, and Trump’s call for investigation lacks substantiation.

    Claim 3: Fox News pollsters should also be investigated for bias, implying they are part of the same problem.

    Fact-Check:

    • Fox News Polls: Trump includes Fox News in his critique, though he doesn’t specify which poll. A recent Fox News poll reported his approval rating at 44%, higher than The New York Times and ABC/Washington Post figures. Fox News polls are conducted by Beacon Research (Democratic firm) and Shaw & Company Research (Republican firm), using standard methodologies. There’s no evidence of deliberate bias in their sampling or results.
    • Context of Inclusion: Trump’s inclusion of Fox News, a generally conservative-leaning outlet, may reflect frustration with any negative polling, even from sources typically favorable to him. However, without specific evidence of misconduct, this accusation is baseless.
    • Verdict: False. There’s no evidence that Fox News polls are fraudulent or biased in a way that warrants investigation. Their methodologies align with industry standards, and their results are consistent with other reputable polls.

    Claim 4: These pollsters are “Negative Criminals” who apologize after Trump wins elections “much bigger than their polls showed” and then continue “cheating and lying.”

    Fact-Check:

    • Polling Accuracy in 2024: Pre-election polls in 2024 underestimated Trump’s support, as they did in 2016 and 2020, but the errors were not as severe as Trump claims. In battleground states, Trump’s margin of victory was often within the polls’ margin of error, though national polls underestimated his popular vote share. For example, in Florida, polls predicted a 5-point Trump lead, but he won by 13 points. These errors are consistent with historical polling challenges, not evidence of deliberate cheating.
    • Apologies from Pollsters: There’s no record of The New York Times, ABC/Washington Post, or Fox News issuing formal apologies for their 2024 pre-election polls. After 2016 and 2020, some pollsters conducted post-mortems to analyze errors, but these were professional reviews, not admissions of guilt or criminality.
    • Cheating and Lying: Trump’s claim that pollsters “go on cheating and lying” is unsupported. Polling firms have adjusted methodologies since 2016, such as weighting for education levels, to address underestimating Trump’s support. Errors persist due to complex factors like nonresponse bias or shifting voter preferences, but there’s no evidence of intentional deception.
    • Verdict: False. The characterization of pollsters as “Negative Criminals” who cheat and lie is baseless. Polling errors in 2024 were within historical norms, and there’s no evidence of criminal intent or apologies from these organizations.

    Claim 5: Pollsters suffer from “Trump Derangement Syndrome” and “almost only write negative stories” about Trump, despite his accomplishments (e.g., “99.9% at the Border, BEST NUMBER EVER!”).

    Fact-Check:

    • Trump Derangement Syndrome: This is a pejorative term used by Trump and his supporters to describe perceived irrational bias against him. It’s subjective and not a recognized psychological or professional condition. While some argue media coverage of Trump is disproportionately negative, studies show his coverage is often driven by controversial actions or statements, which attract more attention. There’s no evidence that pollsters’ methodologies are influenced by personal bias against Trump.
    • Negative Stories: Trump’s claim that these outlets “almost only write negative stories” is an exaggeration. The New York Times, ABC News, and Washington Post have published stories on Trump’s policy successes, such as economic growth or border security measures, though they also cover controversies extensively. Polls themselves are data-driven and separate from editorial content, so this claim conflates polling with news reporting.
    • Border Claim: Trump’s assertion of “99.9% at the Border, BEST NUMBER EVER!” lacks context and evidence. Border security metrics, like apprehensions or deportations, fluctuate and are reported by agencies like U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). As of April 2025, no CBP data supports a “99.9%” success rate, and the claim is vague (e.g., does it refer to apprehensions, deportations, or crossings prevented?). In 2024, border apprehensions were high, with over 2 million encounters reported, though deportations also increased under Trump’s policies. Without specific data, this claim is unverifiable and likely exaggerated.
    • Verdict: Mostly False. “Trump Derangement Syndrome” is a subjective term with no empirical basis in polling. The claim of exclusively negative coverage is exaggerated, as these outlets report both positive and negative stories. The “99.9% at the Border” claim lacks evidence and is too vague to verify.

    Claim 6: These pollsters are “TRULY THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE” and will continue to be fought by Trump to “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.”

    Fact-Check:

    • Enemy of the People: This is a rhetorical attack Trump has used against media and institutions he perceives as hostile. It’s subjective and not a factual claim that can be verified. Polling organizations like The New York Times, ABC News, and Washington Post are private entities conducting surveys within legal and professional guidelines. Disputing their results does not make them enemies of the public.
    • Fighting to Make America Great Again: This is a campaign slogan and expression of intent, not a factual claim. It reflects Trump’s political stance but doesn’t require fact-checking.
    • Verdict: Opinion, Not Fact. The “enemy of the people” label is a subjective opinion, not a verifiable claim. The commitment to “Make America Great Again” is a political statement, not a fact to check.

    Overall Assessment:

    Trump’s claims are largely false or misleading. The accusations of “fake polls” and “election fraud” against The New York Times, ABC/Washington Post, and Fox News are unsupported by evidence, as these organizations use standard polling methodologies. Differences in sample composition (e.g., 37% or 34% Trump voters) are normal and do not indicate fraud. Historical polling errors, while real, are due to methodological challenges, not criminal intent. Claims of “Trump Derangement Syndrome” and exclusively negative coverage are subjective exaggerations, and the “99.9% at the Border” claim lacks verifiable data. The “enemy of the people” label is rhetorical, not factual. Trump’s post reflects a pattern of attacking institutions that report unfavorable results, but the evidence does not support his allegations of fraud or deliberate bias.

  • Donald Trump Is Selling the White House to the Highest Bidder

    “Personal enrichment stands out: Imagine any other president collecting a cut of sales from a cryptocurrency marketed with his likeness.”

    (Unlocked gift link included)

    One-sentence summary: In his second term, Donald Trump has dismantled ethical norms and government regulations to personally enrich himself, reward wealthy donors, and further entrench his power, setting a new low for presidential corruption.

    Steven Rattner’s opinion piece details how Donald Trump’s second term has broken every traditional ethical boundary of American governance, focusing on personal enrichment, elimination of oversight, and rewarding wealthy supporters. Trump’s actions include pardoning donors, promoting cryptocurrency tied to his own brand, and using government resources to bolster his family’s wealth and business interests. His administration has dismantled numerous ethics rules, weakened or removed key oversight bodies, and allowed figures like Elon Musk to wield substantial influence without standard conflict-of-interest disclosures.

    Trump has reshaped norms by eliminating gift bans, weakening anti-lobbying laws, and purging inspectors general who monitored executive branch integrity. He has rewarded wealthy donors with powerful appointments and government contracts. Jared Isaacman, a major donor, was nominated to head NASA, while Trump’s pardoning of Trevor Milton followed substantial campaign contributions.

    Elon Musk’s role is emblematic of the conflicts: Musk, named a special government employee, has leveraged government connections to potentially benefit SpaceX and Tesla financially, with projects like the “Golden Dome” missile defense system and favorable treatment at agencies like the FAA.

    Trump has also embraced cryptocurrency aggressively, removing regulatory barriers while personally profiting. His family’s crypto wealth is approaching $1 billion, and they have launched their own memecoins. Key crypto-related enforcement actions have been halted, including those against major figures and firms like Binance and Justin Sun.

    Further consolidating his wealth and influence, Trump is raising large sums through political committees and expanding international business ties, notably with Saudi Arabia. He continues to blend official presidential activities with private commercial interests, underscoring a presidency that Rattner portrays as uniquely and systematically corrupt.

    Rattner, Steven. “Donald Trump Is Selling the White House to the Highest Bidder.” The New York Times, 27 Apr. 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/27/opinion/trump-crypto-musk-spacex.html.

    Unlocked gift link:

    Key takeaways:

    • Trump has dismantled federal ethics rules and oversight mechanisms to enhance personal and family wealth.
    • High-profile figures like Elon Musk have gained influence without facing typical conflict-of-interest restrictions.
    • Trump’s administration has aggressively promoted cryptocurrency, weakening regulation while personally profiting.
    • Wealthy donors have received ambassadorships, pardons, and business favors.
    • Trump is blending his political activities with business ventures, including real estate projects in Saudi Arabia.

    Most important quotations:

    • “Personal enrichment stands out: Imagine any other president collecting a cut of sales from a cryptocurrency marketed with his likeness.”
    • “The corruption of Trump 2.0 has not gotten the attention it deserves amid the barrage of news.”
    • “SpaceX is a leading contender to secure a large share of Mr. Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ missile defense project.”
    • “Trump’s family crypto fortune is nearing $1 billion.”
    • “It’s all a sorry and sordid picture, a president who had already set a new standard for egregious and potentially illegal behavior hitting new lows with metronomic regularity.”

    Word count of the generated summary: 517
    Word count of the supplied input: 2,278

    Model version: GPT-4
    Custom GPT name: Summarizer 2

  • Homicide in the States

    Homicide in the States

    Predicting state homicide rates from two factors: Political sentiment and the state’s total population.

    We tried to predict state homicide rates from two factors: how much of the vote went to Donald Trump in 2024, and the state’s total population. The relationship with population is very weak. There’s a slight hint that states with higher Trump vote shares might have higher homicide rates, but this finding is right on the edge of typical “significance” and should be taken with a grain of salt. Overall, these two factors, by themselves, do not explain much of the difference in homicide rates across states.

    Click for larger

    Regression Statistics

    Below is a table of the regression coefficients, their standard errors, t-values, p-values, and 95% confidence intervals:

    TermEstimateStd. Errort valuep valueLower CIUpper CI
    (Intercept)~0.53~2.87~0.190.853~-5.24~6.31
    x (Trump %)~10.20~5.08~2.010.051~-0.02~20.42
    size_values5.98e-086.61e-08~0.900.371-7.34e-081.93e-07

    Model Fit Statistics:

    • R-squared = ~0.084
    • Adjusted R-squared = ~0.044
    • F-statistic (df=2,46) = ~2.10 (p = 0.134)
    • Number of Observations = 49

    Detailed Explanation of the Results

    Intercept: The estimated intercept is approximately 0.53, but with a large standard error and a high p-value (0.853). This indicates that if both predictors (Trump vote share and population) were theoretically zero, the predicted homicide rate would be around 0.53 murders per 100k. However, this is not statistically distinguishable from zero.

    Share of Trump Vote (x): The coefficient is roughly 10.20 (p = 0.051), which is borderline significant at the 5% level. The positive sign suggests that, when state population is held constant, higher projected Trump vote share is associated with a higher homicide rate. Specifically, for each 1.0 increase in Trump vote share (that is, going from 0% to 100%, which is not realistic but a linear extension), the model predicts an increase of about 10 homicides per 100k. However, it’s important to note that 0.051 is slightly above the traditional 0.05 significance cutoff, so this result is borderline and should be interpreted cautiously.

    State Population (size_values): The coefficient is very small (~6.0e-08) and not statistically significant (p = 0.371). This means that once the model takes the share of Trump vote into account, there’s no clear evidence that the total population size by itself helps predict the homicide rate in a linear sense.

    Model Fit:

    • The R-squared (0.084) and adjusted R-squared (0.044) are relatively low, indicating that only around 8% of the variation in homicide rates is explained by these two predictors.
    • The overall F-statistic is not significant at conventional thresholds (p = 0.134), which further suggests caution in drawing strong conclusions from this model.

    Interpretation and Caution:

    • The data set is relatively small (49 states), and we have an NA for one case.
    • High multicollinearity or other issues could be at play (the condition number in the background is quite large), possibly because population can vary widely and might interact with many other state-level factors.
    • The borderline p-value for the Trump vote share means the result could go either way with more data or slightly different model specifications.

    In summary, with this simple linear model, we do not see strong or definitive evidence that either state population or projected Trump vote share is a powerful linear predictor of homicide rates. There is a weak (borderline) indication that higher Trump share might relate to higher homicide rates, but the effect fails to reach the conventional threshold of statistical significance at the 5% level, and the overall explanatory power of the model is low.

  • Opinion | Unmarked Vans. Secret Lists. Public Denunciations. America’s Police State Has Arrived.

    One-sentence summary: Masha Gessen argues that recent immigration enforcement tactics under the Trump administration resemble those of a secret-police state, with unchecked detentions, legal disregard, and public denunciations creating a pervasive climate of fear and surveillance.

    In this opinion piece, Masha Gessen contends that the United States is exhibiting the characteristics of a secret-police state through the escalating actions of immigration enforcement agencies under President Trump’s second term. The article opens with the disturbing video of Mahmoud Khalil’s arrest by plainclothes agents in an unmarked van – a scene reminiscent of authoritarian regimes – and highlights similar detentions of individuals like Tufts graduate student Rumeysa Ozturk and Brown professor Rasha Alawieh.

    Gessen describes a pattern of arbitrary enforcement, where even legal visa holders and U.S. citizens face detentions with no explanation or due process. Courts have issued orders to block certain deportations or removals, but the executive branch has ignored these rulings, undercutting the judiciary and legal protections. A growing number of reports detail ICE presence at schools, libraries, workplaces, and subways, leading to widespread fear among immigrant communities and a near-emptying of certain neighborhoods.

    The article emphasizes the opaque operations of the Department of Homeland Security, including revoking visa statuses without notification and detaining foreign nationals for minor infractions. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has openly celebrated the revocation of legal statuses, suggesting a political campaign of intimidation rather than lawful enforcement.

    A major concern raised by Gessen is the emergence of secret lists and citizen surveillance. The ICERAID app invites users to report suspected undocumented immigrants and even self-report in exchange for potential rewards, effectively encouraging public denunciations. Private groups like Mothers Against College Antisemitism and Betar U.S. are compiling lists of students and professors they deem antisemitic, many of whom are later detained or punished by state authorities, with little evidence provided.

    The piece closes by comparing this environment to those seen in totalitarian states, where citizens fear random targeting, surveillance, and denunciation by neighbors or strangers. The psychological toll includes anxiety, self-censorship, and isolation. Gessen warns that while some may still have the ability to speak out, the country is already functioning as a secret-police state.

    Gessen, Masha. “Opinion | Unmarked Vans. Secret Lists. Public Denunciations. America’s Police State Has Arrived.” The New York Times, 2 Apr. 2025, www.nytimes.com/2025/04/02/opinion/trump-ice-immigrants.html.

    Key takeaways:

    • Plainclothes arrests and unmarked vans evoke fear tactics of past authoritarian regimes.
    • Individuals with legal immigration status and even citizens are being detained without due process.
    • Courts have attempted to intervene but have been largely ignored by federal enforcement agencies.
    • DHS is altering visa statuses without transparency, affecting foreign students and professionals.
    • Secret lists and apps like ICERAID are enabling citizen-led surveillance and denunciation.
    • Groups with extreme ideologies are influencing state actions and targeting individuals for supposed antisemitism.
    • The current climate fosters fear, isolation, and self-censorship, echoing life under secret-police states.

    Most important quotations:

    • “It’s the unmarked cars.”
    • “We don’t give our name.”
    • “We’re looking every day for these lunatics.” – Marco Rubio
    • “Give us a person and we’ll find the infraction.”
    • “The United States has become a secret-police state. Trust me, I’ve seen it before.”

    Word count of summary: 603
    Word count of input: 2,538

    Model version: gpt-4
    Custom GPT name: Summarizer 2

  • Ivermectin Shows That Not All Science Is Worth Following

    One-sentence summary: Despite widespread interest in ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, many studies supporting its use are riddled with methodological flaws, data inconsistencies, and outright fabrications, revealing deeper issues within the scientific publication process.

    Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that is highly effective in treating conditions like river blindness and scabies, gained attention during the COVID-19 pandemic as a potential treatment or preventative measure. While dozens of studies and a few meta-analyses suggested some efficacy, deeper scrutiny by a team of volunteer researchers engaged in “forensic peer review” revealed significant problems in many of the studies cited to support ivermectin’s benefits.

    This team, which independently analyzes scientific studies for statistical anomalies, inconsistencies, and data manipulation, reviewed about 30 influential ivermectin studies. At least five were found to be so flawed that they should be retracted-one already has been. For example, a study from Egypt counted deaths that occurred before it began, and another from Lebanon featured duplicated data. Despite these issues, such studies are rarely retracted or even formally investigated, as the peer review system was overwhelmed during the pandemic and lacks the rigor to detect fraud or errors in rushed publications.

    The most concerning aspect is that the studies with the most favorable outcomes for ivermectin often turned out to be the most unreliable, while more rigorously conducted trials tended to yield inconclusive or modest results. The pandemic created a publishing environment where even flawed studies could gain widespread attention quickly, bypassing normal scrutiny and being amplified by social media.

    Furthermore, systemic issues plague scientific publishing: journals are slow to respond to critiques, authors resist transparency, and studies with questionable data are often left unchallenged. This creates a body of literature that appears scientifically legitimate but is fundamentally flawed. While not necessarily indicative of a conspiracy, the situation reflects a larger failure in managing scientific integrity. The prevalence of poor research, especially in high-stakes scenarios like a pandemic, points to a need for greater institutional oversight and a cultural shift toward skepticism and accountability in evaluating scientific claims.

    The article argues that rather than following all science unquestioningly, it is essential to assess the quality of the research, especially during times of crisis. Many flawed studies are published in obscure or predatory journals and are designed to pad academic résumés rather than advance knowledge. However, in the pandemic era, even such marginal studies can gain traction and influence public discourse, leading to widespread misinformation.

    Ultimately, the author warns that without institutional support for rigorous review and accountability, it falls to a small group of volunteers to identify and expose problematic science-an untenable situation given the stakes involved.

    Heathers, James. “Ivermectin Shows That Not All Science Is Worth Following.” The Atlantic, 23 Oct. 2021, www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/10/ivermectin-research-problems/620473.

    Key takeaways:

    • Ivermectin gained popularity as a COVID-19 treatment based on a flawed body of research.
    • At least five out of 30 reviewed ivermectin studies had serious data problems or methodological flaws.
    • Studies with the most dramatic pro-ivermectin findings were often the most unreliable.
    • Peer review systems were overwhelmed during the pandemic, allowing flawed research to be published and amplified.
    • Volunteer “forensic peer reviewers” often uncover problems journals fail to catch or address.
    • Scientific publishing lacks institutional mechanisms to catch and correct flawed research effectively.
    • Poor research can influence public health discourse when it gains attention on social media.
    • The current system permits low-quality studies to be published with little accountability.

    Most important quotations:

    • “The problem is, not all science is worth following.”
    • “If five out of 30 were guaranteed to explode as soon as they entered a freeway on-ramp, you would prefer to take the bus.”
    • “Most problematic, the studies we are certain are unreliable happen to be the same ones that show ivermectin as most effective.”
    • “There is no net.”
    • “We have now reached a point where those doing systematic reviews must start by assuming that a study is fraudulent until they can have some evidence to the contrary.”
    • “An unbelievable, inaccurate study… may bubble over into the public consciousness as soon as it appears online.”
    • “It is a testament to how badly the scientific commons are managed that their products are fact-checked for the first time by a group of weary volunteers.”

    Word count of generated summary: 799
    Word count of supplied input: 2,774

  • Adult Literacy and Numeracy in Counties

    Adult Literacy and Numeracy in Counties

    Analyzing literacy and numeracy rates in counties alongside political sentiment.

    PIAAC (the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies) defines different levels for adult skills in literacy and numeracy, ranging from below Level 1 up to Level 5. Level 3 is often considered a baseline or minimum desired level of proficiency for dealing with the demands of everyday life and work in a modern society. In more detail:

    Level 3 in Literacy: At Level 3, tasks typically require integrating, interpreting, or synthesizing information from dense or lengthy texts. Individuals can identify important details, make some inferences, and navigate moderate complexity in reading materials.

    Level 3 in Numeracy: At Level 3, tasks may require multiple steps and the interpretation of numerical information in various formats (e.g., tables, charts, or text). Individuals can handle somewhat more complex calculations, interpret data, and apply reasoning to solve problems in real-life contexts (budgeting, scheduling, analyzing simple graphs, etc.).

    When a chart shows the share of adults “at or above Level 3,” it means the percentage of people who reach at least this medium-range skill level. Individuals below Level 3 may struggle more with everyday tasks — like understanding multi-paragraph instructions or making sense of typical quantitative information — whereas those at or above Level 3 can manage those tasks more successfully.

    I gathered county-level data from PIAAC and plotted it along with the percent of voters in the county that chose Donald Trump in 2020. The PIAAC data is for 2017. I also asked ChatGPT to help me explain the chart. (Click chart for larger)

    These two scatterplots each show U.S. counties as bubbles, where:

    • Horizontal axis (x-axis): The percentage of votes cast for Donald Trump in 2020 for each county.
    • Vertical axis (y-axis): The percentage of adults in the county who score “at or above level 3” in either literacy (left chart) or numeracy (right chart).
    • Bubble size: Proportional to the county’s population. Larger circles represent more populous counties.

    In other words, each point corresponds to a county. The position on the x-axis shows how strongly that county voted for Trump, while the position on the y-axis shows the share of adults who have at least level-3 skills in literacy or numeracy (based on data from PIAAC). Some key takeaways:

    1. Negative relationship: In both charts, you can see that as the percentage of Trump votes increases (moving right on the x-axis), the average proportion of adults scoring at or above level 3 in literacy/numeracy tends to go down. In other words, there’s a negative association between Trump’s vote share and higher literacy/numeracy skills in these data.

    2. Wide spread but a clear pattern: While there is a cluster around the middle, many points in the lower-right quadrant indicate that counties with higher Trump vote shares often have a smaller share of adults at or above level 3. Meanwhile, counties with lower Trump vote shares (points farther left on the x-axis) tend to show higher percentages of adults meeting level-3 thresholds.

    3. Bubble sizes and population: Larger circles often appear to the left (that is, in counties where Trump’s vote share was lower) and frequently have higher literacy/numeracy. These big circles represent large, more populous counties. Conversely, many smaller circles — which represent less populous counties — are distributed across the rest of the charts, including in areas where a higher share of votes went to Trump.

    Overall, the charts illustrate that — within these data — counties that leaned more heavily toward Trump in the 2020 election are on average associated with somewhat lower proportions of adults at or above a level-3 threshold in literacy or numeracy, and vice versa.

  • Trump’s Tariffs Make Absolutely No Sense

    (Unlocked gift link included)

    One-sentence summary: Jason Furman argues that Donald Trump’s proposed “reciprocal tariffs” are based on flawed economic reasoning and would damage the U.S. economy, worsen global trade relations, and ultimately empower China.

    In this opinion piece, economist Jason Furman critiques former President Donald Trump’s expected announcement of “reciprocal tariffs,” a policy aimed at matching other countries’ tariff levels on U.S. goods. Furman argues that the rationale behind this policy is deeply flawed, starting with the misconception that trade deficits are inherently bad and stem from foreign trade barriers. He illustrates this point by likening trade to everyday exchanges, emphasizing that buying more from a partner than one sells is not inherently problematic.

    Furman explains that imports benefit American consumers through variety, quality, and affordability, and help domestic companies stay competitive by lowering input costs. He dispels the idea that tariffs influence trade deficits, citing that these imbalances are largely determined by national saving and investment rates. Because the U.S. invests more than it saves, it attracts foreign capital, which in turn drives up imports and creates a trade deficit – a sign of economic strength, not weakness.

    Reciprocal tariffs, Furman argues, would reduce both imports and exports, hurt economic growth, and risk inflation and job loss. Even without retaliatory measures from other countries, tariffs would make foreign goods more expensive and reduce foreign demand for American goods by strengthening the dollar. Furman warns that Trump’s approach is not limited to equalizing trade barriers but selectively targets products with higher foreign tariffs, ignoring areas where U.S. tariffs are already higher.

    He also critiques Trump’s claims that foreign VATs discriminate against U.S. exports, clarifying that these taxes apply equally to domestic and imported goods in those countries. Furman notes that demanding changes to VAT systems would require countries to alter foundational aspects of their tax codes – a highly unrealistic goal.

    The real economic costs are substantial: Trump’s first-term tariff hikes averaged a 1.5-point increase, while 2025 actions have already added another six points, with more expected. These could reduce GDP growth by 0.5 percentage point, raise inflation, and cost households roughly $1,000. Lower-income Americans will feel the burden most, even as potential tax cuts benefit wealthier households. The stock market has already lost $3 trillion since February due to tariff-related uncertainty.

    Furman concludes by warning of geopolitical consequences. As the U.S. retreats from global trade, China stands to benefit by deepening its ties with other countries. This shift in trade alliances could pave the way for a broader realignment of global political power, increasingly centered around China.

    Furman, Jason. “Opinion | Trump’s Tariffs Make Absolutely No Sense.” The New York Times, 31 Mar. 2025, www.nytimes.com/2025/03/31/opinion/trump-tariffs-economy.html.

    Unlocked gift link:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/31/opinion/trump-tariffs-economy.html?unlocked_article_code=1.8E4.oaZr.ZUB2kW7HA-uk&smid=url-share

    Key takeaways:

    • Trump’s proposed reciprocal tariffs are based on a misunderstanding of trade deficits and global economics.
    • Trade deficits are more influenced by investment and saving behaviors than by tariffs.
    • Imports benefit consumers and support U.S. businesses by providing cheaper inputs and greater product variety.
    • Tariffs will likely lead to less trade, higher prices, slower growth, and economic uncertainty.
    • Lower-income households will bear more of the costs, while benefits will skew toward wealthier individuals.
    • Trump’s approach selectively targets high-tariff goods while ignoring where U.S. tariffs are higher.
    • Foreign VATs are not discriminatory; changing them is implausible.
    • The policy could diminish the U.S.’s global economic role and strengthen China’s influence.

    Most important quotations:

    • “Every step in this chain of reasoning is wrong.”
    • “Imports are good, not bad.”
    • “There is generally no correlation between a country’s tariff levels and its overall trade balance.”
    • “Even if other countries don’t retaliate… the situation is still bad.”
    • “The enormous increase in business uncertainty that tariffs have engendered means anything could happen.”
    • “Lower-income families will pay a higher fraction of their income in tariffs.”
    • “Give these countries a choice between economic relations with the United States and with China, they would probably choose the latter in a heartbeat.”

    Word count of generated summary: 798
    Word count of supplied input: 1,651

    Model version used: gpt-4-turbo
    Custom GPT name: Summarizer 2

  • The Secret History of America’s Involvement in the Ukraine War

    (Unlocked gift link included)

    One-sentence summary: A secretive, high-stakes U.S.-Ukrainian military partnership forged in 2022 shaped the course of the Ukraine war, yielding early gains but later unraveling amid diverging goals, internal rivalries, and shifting American policy.

    Adam Entous’s investigation, based on over 300 interviews across multiple countries, unveils the covert partnership between the United States and Ukraine that shaped the trajectory of the war against Russia from 2022 through early 2025. The collaboration began shortly after Russia’s full-scale invasion, when top Ukrainian generals were secretly flown to Wiesbaden, Germany, where U.S. Army Europe and Africa headquartered a clandestine operation known as Task Force Dragon. There, alongside coalition allies, U.S. officers and intelligence agencies helped plan Ukraine’s defenses and counteroffensives, supplying intelligence, training, and advanced weaponry. This tight-knit alliance enabled a technologically outmatched Ukraine to hold off and even repel Russian forces in key battles, such as Kherson and Kharkiv.

    Throughout the war’s early stages, the U.S. supplied Ukraine with an unprecedented arsenal, including HIMARS, Javelins, Patriot systems, and intelligence that formed the backbone of targeting efforts. U.S. and Ukrainian officers worked side by side, planning major strikes and coordinating real-time battlefield operations. American intelligence often guided Ukrainian artillerymen, with cooperation so deep that NATO officers described the U.S. as part of the “kill chain.”

    Yet the partnership also strained under cultural misunderstandings, mismatched expectations, and diverging goals. Ukrainian leaders often viewed American support as insufficient or too cautious, while U.S. officials grew frustrated with what they saw as political interference and disorganization in Ukraine’s military command. These tensions reached a breaking point during the failed 2023 counteroffensive, when internal rivalries-particularly between Generals Zaluzhny and Syrsky-and President Zelensky’s strategic preferences led to a fragmented, ultimately ineffective campaign. American planners had urged caution and patience, but Ukraine pressed ahead, dividing resources among multiple offensives, especially focusing on Bakhmut, which yielded high Russian casualties but no strategic breakthrough.

    As the war dragged on into 2024, Ukraine’s battlefield gains dwindled. U.S. support persisted but became more conditional and measured, crossing previous red lines gradually – authorizing long-range missile strikes into Russian-held Crimea, expanding CIA intelligence-sharing, and later permitting strikes inside Russian territory itself. These decisions were often reactive, prompted by Russia’s tactical advances or fears of political fallout from perceived inaction.

    The firing of General Zaluzhny in early 2025, replaced by the more politically aligned General Syrsky, signaled a shift in Ukraine’s internal dynamics. At the same time, the partnership evolved toward greater Ukrainian autonomy in operations, though friction remained – especially as Ukraine used coalition weapons in unsanctioned offensives into Russia, breaching previously agreed-upon rules.

    Operation Lunar Hail, a covert long-range missile campaign against Russian military assets in Crimea, showcased the enduring yet fragile collaboration between Ukraine and its Western allies. Despite successes, Ukraine’s reliance on Western support – increasingly uncertain under President Trump’s incoming administration – exposed the country’s vulnerability. Trump’s victory brought immediate fears of waning U.S. commitment. Biden’s outgoing administration rushed to solidify support and authorize broader targeting flexibility, but the geopolitical future of Ukraine remained uncertain.

    Ultimately, while the U.S.-Ukraine partnership delayed Russian advances and yielded critical battlefield victories, it failed to deliver a decisive outcome. Political rivalries, mismatched ambitions, and limited resources eroded early momentum, and by early 2025, Ukraine’s territorial gains had stalled, with both sides entrenched and the war’s end nowhere in sight.

    Entous’s detailed narrative reveals how a secret alliance, forged in crisis, became both a tool of resilience and a mirror of its participants’ contradictions, ambitions, and limits.

    Entous, Adam. “The Secret History of America’s Involvement in the Ukraine War.” The New York Times, 31 Mar. 2025. www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/29/world/europe/us-ukraine-military-war-wiesbaden.html

    Unlocked gift link:
    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/29/world/europe/us-ukraine-military-war-wiesbaden.html?unlocked_article_code=1.8E4.M1gJ.ynPXpFKOkCCX&smid=url-share

    Key takeaways:

    • A secret U.S.-Ukraine military partnership was launched in Wiesbaden in spring 2022 and became central to Ukraine’s battlefield strategy.
    • American intelligence, training, and weapons enabled Ukraine’s early successes against Russian forces.
    • Strategic divergences and political rivalries in Ukraine weakened the effectiveness of 2023’s counteroffensive.
    • Over time, the U.S. relaxed multiple red lines, eventually allowing missile and intelligence support for operations inside Russian territory.
    • Internal Ukrainian political dynamics, particularly the rivalry between Generals Zaluzhny and Syrsky, further complicated the war effort.
    • President Trump’s election in 2024 created uncertainty around continued U.S. support, while Biden’s administration sought to secure short-term gains.
    • Despite operational achievements, by early 2025 the war had reached a stalemate, with both sides trading small territorial gains.

    Notable quotations:

    • “They are part of the kill chain now.” – European intelligence chief on U.S. integration into Ukrainian military operations.
    • “We told them, ‘The Russians are coming – see ya.’” – U.S. military official, recalling the pre-invasion withdrawal.
    • “You can ‘Slava Ukraini’ all you want with other people… Look at the numbers.” – Gen. Donahue to Ukrainian counterparts.
    • “We should have walked away.” – Senior American official on the failed 2023 counteroffensive.
    • “From where?” – Gen. Cavoli in response to Ukrainian requests for massive supplies.
    • “It’s not an existential war if they won’t make their people fight.” – American official on Ukraine’s conscription hesitancy.
    • “What is going to happen if President Trump wins?” – Ukrainian leaders’ recurring concern.

    Word counts:
    Generated summary: 1,181 words
    Original article: Approx. 17,300 words

    Model version: GPT-4
    Custom GPT: Summarizer 2