The next fight over freedom will run through AI models



When it comes to artificial intelligence, the Trump administration has made its position clear: America will not choke innovation with red tape.

That instinct is understandable and, in many ways, correct. AI is moving fast, and heavy-handed regulation could do real damage. If the United States cripples its own companies, China will gladly take the advantage. And no one on the right wants blue-state politicians using AI rules to smuggle “woke” ideology into the next generation of powerful models.

The goal should be straightforward: Build an American AI future in which freedom is embedded from the start, and constitutional guardrails shape the systems that will increasingly shape us.

As White House AI adviser David Sacks recently put it, “We don’t like seeing blue states trying to insert their woke ideology in AI models, and we really want to try and stop that.”

Fair enough.

But what happens when resistance to bad regulation hardens into resistance to any regulation at all?

That question is now surfacing in Utah, where the White House is reportedly opposing a Republican-sponsored AI transparency bill. The fight may sound parochial, but it raises a much larger question: Do conservatives have the discipline to protect constitutional liberty in the AI age?

Utah isn’t California

The Utah proposal is not a European-style crackdown. It would not impose speech codes, mandate ideological compliance, or try to centrally plan the AI economy.

At its core, the bill focuses on transparency and accountability. It would require frontier AI companies to disclose serious risks, plan for safety in advance, report major problems, and protect whistleblowers who raise alarms.

That’s far from radical.

If the administration’s AI strategy is to stop progressive states from embedding political orthodoxy into algorithms, Utah’s bill does not belong in that category. The measure is about making sure the companies building extraordinarily powerful systems acknowledge the risks up front and take responsibility when things go wrong.

Treating that effort as if it were blue-state social engineering confuses two very different problems. There is a real difference between using AI regulation to enforce ideology and asking powerful firms to level with the public about systems that could reshape society.

The myth of an ‘unregulated’ AI market

Another uncomfortable truth lurks beneath this debate: AI is not operating in anything like a free-market vacuum.

The European Union has already enacted its sweeping AI Act. That regulatory regime will not stop at Europe’s borders. American companies that operate globally will feel its force, and American users will feel the downstream effects.

If the United States adopts a posture of total federal non-engagement, it will not preserve a neutral market. It will hand the regulatory initiative to Brussels.

That would be a serious mistake. Europe does not regulate with American constitutional principles in mind. It regulates through a bureaucratic worldview that prizes centralized control over freedom. If Washington refuses to establish clear guardrails rooted in our own constitutional tradition, foreign regulators and multinational firms will fill the void.

Power without constitutional guardrails

AI is quickly becoming part of the infrastructure of modern life. These systems increasingly shape how information flows, how public opinion forms, and how daily choices get nudged.

That is power.

We have already watched major corporations use private power to shape public life. Social-media companies moderated, suppressed, and curated speech in ways that tilted public debate. Large firms adopted ESG frameworks that embedded political priorities into lending, hiring, and investment. In both cases, powerful institutions pushed ideological outcomes without a vote being cast or a law being passed.

Nothing suggests AI will escape those pressures.

RELATED: If AI isn’t built for freedom, it will be programmed for control

gorodenkoff / Getty Images

The companies building frontier systems carry their own assumptions, incentives, and cultural biases. If those assumptions get baked into foundational models — and those models then get integrated into education, finance, media, hiring, and governance — ideological influence will move from the margins to the infrastructure of society.

Yes, clumsy central planning would hurt innovation and weaken America’s position against China. But the answer cannot be blind faith that market incentives alone will protect liberty. That asks a great deal of institutions that have already shown a willingness to steer political and cultural outcomes in their preferred direction.

The real challenge is making sure extraordinary technological power develops inside a framework that respects constitutional rights, individual liberty, and personal autonomy.

A pro-liberty AI framework

The Trump administration is right to resist ideological manipulation in AI models and to oppose sweeping regimes that would handicap American innovation while China races ahead.

But someone will shape the boundaries of this technology. The only real question is whether those boundaries reflect American constitutional principles or the preferences of foreign regulators and corporate boards.

Red states such as Utah should be treated as allies in that effort, not obstacles. They can serve as proving ground for approaches that protect transparency, due process, free expression, and individual autonomy without strangling innovation.

Artificial intelligence will shape the next century more than any single statute. Total non-engagement may sound pro-growth, but in practice it leaves the foundational rules of the AI era to someone else.

The goal should be straightforward: Build an American AI future in which freedom is embedded from the start, and constitutional guardrails shape the systems that will increasingly shape us.

At Trump’s State of the Union, remember the free-market miracle in your pocket



President Trump will deliver the first State of the Union of his second term on Tuesday, an address that lands near the 250th anniversary of a nation built on freedom and enterprise. He will likely highlight ending foreign conflicts, restoring border security, reasserting American strength, and advancing his legislative agenda. He will point to economic gains — growth returning, inflation easing, energy prices falling, tax relief delivered, and markets responding. He will argue that the Trump economy is putting Americans back in charge of their own prosperity.

But one success story may not make the headlines: Under pro-investment, pro-competition policies, America’s wireless market has delivered lower prices, better service, and more choice — without mandates, price controls, or government-run networks.

Wireless shows free markets still work when Washington lets them.

Since Trump took office, wireless prices are down 4%. The White House even lists it as Win No. 132 in “365 Wins in 365 Days.” Backed by Bureau of Labor Statistics data, wireless plans and smartphones cost less in real dollars today than they did decades ago — while delivering hundreds of times faster speeds and vastly more data.

Twenty years ago, wireless networks mostly carried voice calls. Today they power work, school, health care, navigation, banking, entertainment, and small business. A wireless subscription also takes a declining share of the household budget.

That didn’t happen by accident. Competition, private investment, and smart policy drove it.

Better service, more choice, lower cost

Plans now deliver more data, faster speeds, and wider coverage than most people imagined 20 years ago. What once required a wired connection at home now works almost anywhere.

Fixed wireless access has helped drive that shift — home internet delivered over wireless networks. Nearly 15 million households now use wireless service instead of a fixed line, giving families a new, often cheaper alternative.

Americans also benefit from real choice. Most people are covered by three or more national wireless networks, each offering multiple brands, including lower-cost and prepaid options for families, seniors, students, and budget-conscious users. Dozens of smaller carriers and resellers add even more price competition. Companies need to earn customers’ business.

Wireless saves families real money

Wireless doesn’t just connect people — it cuts costs.

Parents save time and fuel by working remotely. Seniors can use telehealth instead of driving long distances. Students can learn from anywhere. Small businesses can reach customers without expensive storefronts or phone systems.

No other essential service — housing, health care, food, or energy — has improved this much while becoming more affordable. Wireless quietly delivers more value every year.

America leads because America invests

None of this works without investment. U.S. wireless companies invest about $30 billion a year to build and upgrade networks. Per person, that’s nearly double what Europe invests.

As a result, the United States leads the world in wireless performance, coverage, and innovation. That leadership didn’t come from government-run networks or price controls. It came from letting companies compete, invest, and take risks.

President Trump’s first-term spectrum auction raised a record $90 billion and helped fuel today’s 5G networks. Now FCC Chairman Brendan Carr is moving quickly toward another auction to free up more airwaves — the raw material wireless networks need to grow.

The spectrum bottleneck is real

Wireless runs on spectrum, and America is running tight.

Large blocks of valuable spectrum remain locked up by federal agencies, even when lightly used. Other countries — China, South Korea, and Japan — have moved faster to free spectrum for commercial use.

More spectrum means better service, more competition, and lower costs. Without it, growth slows and prices rise. That makes unlocking spectrum a national priority.

RELATED: Phones and drones expose the cracks in America’s defenses

dikushin/Getty Images

The hidden fee on your phone bill

Another problem stays mostly invisible to consumers.

The Universal Service Fund is meant to support rural connectivity and essential communications. But instead of being funded broadly, it gets tacked onto phone bills, often as a separate line item. Seniors and working families pay about $9 a month without ever voting on it.

Meanwhile, the biggest users of America’s networks — massive internet platforms — pay little or nothing into the system. They generate enormous traffic, earn billions, and rely on wireless infrastructure built by others.

President Trump has argued that Big Tech should pay its own way when it comes to energy-hungry AI data centers. The same principle should apply here. If you benefit from the network, you should help pay for it.

The bottom line

Wireless shows free markets still work when Washington lets them. Competition pushed prices down. Private investment built world-leading networks. Smart spectrum policy unlocked innovation.

Now policymakers face a choice: Protect what’s working, or burden it with bureaucracy and political favoritism. Free up more spectrum. Preserve real competition. End Big Tech’s free ride on infrastructure funded by American consumers.

If President Trump wants a model of American strength and market-driven success in his State of the Union, he doesn’t have to look far. It’s already in the hands of nearly every American holding a cell phone.

Glenn Beck: Banning corporate home ownership isn’t freedom — but neither is a rigged housing market



When President Trump announced his plan to ban large institutions from buying up American houses, Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck was initially thrilled.

“A conversation is happening in our country right now about housing, about corporations being able to buy homes and whether they should be allowed to do that at all. And my first instinct is no, because the pain this is causing — and the pain is real,” Glenn says.

“Young families are locked out. Rent’s rising faster than wages, communities hollowed out, and you have governments all around the world who are pushing for ‘you will own nothing and you’ll like it.’ Meaning, somebody owns everything. You’re just a constant renter. You’re a serf,” he continues.

However, “every libertarian bone” of Glenn’s reacted to the news that Trump is toying with passing a law addressing this with a resounding “no.”


“Banning ownership is not freedom. It’s just not. … Once you decide who can own property, you’ve crossed a line that history tells us is not easily crossed back in the other direction,” Glenn says.

“But here’s a part that we have to be honest with ourselves about, because pretending otherwise is honestly how we lose the country,” he continues. “What is happening in our country right now is not a free market. You can look at it that way, if you squint really, really hard and lie to yourself every day.”

“We’ve built something entirely different from the free market,” he says, pointing out that in a real free market, “risk matters.”

“In a real market, price signals mean something. … If you make a bad bet, you lose. But that’s not what’s happening. At least not at the corporate level. Okay? That’s not happening in housing. Housing has been transformed into a financial instrument,” he continues.

“It’s not about a house for a family. It’s about a financial instrument. And this isn’t by accident; this is policy. It comes from years of zero interest rates, trillions of cheap dollars, government-backed mortgages, pipelines that are all securitized, regulatory advantages that favor the size or the lawyers and the leverage that you don’t have access to,” he explains.

“Our federal government didn’t just invite Wall Street into housing. It pulled it by the collar and said, ‘You are doing these things because it’s good for our re-election, and I’ll protect you if there’s a problem.’ That’s not a free market,” he says.

This is why Glenn believes the answer is not to outright ban corporations from buying housing, but to address the real issues that have created this situation.

“The problem is not corporate ownership,” Glenn continues. “The problem is privileged ownership. The problem is when government quietly rigs the game.”

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Here’s An Inside Look At The Radical Dogma Being Taught At The No. 1 Elementary Teaching School

"Even my teacher at the first day of class, she said, 'everything is political,' and I didn't understand what she meant until I started doing the content."

Medicaid for millions, misery for the middle class



For months, Republicans and Democrats alike have insisted on keeping the Medicaid subsidy scam alive — even as it drives inflation and enriches the health care cartel. With the Biden-era expansion of Obamacare “marketplace” subsidies set to expire in December, both parties want to renew them. But this moment offers Republicans a rare opportunity: Finally lower health care costs for Americans not living on government handouts.

Obamacare buried the middle class

The ill-named Affordable Care Act helped Republicans win more elections than any issue in recent memory. But since 2016, the party has run from the fight. The result: Individual plans became unaffordable for anyone not getting subsidies, and employer-based coverage got gutted. Workers earn less in take-home pay and pay more for thinner plans.

The signature feature of Obamacare was turning catastrophic coverage into a luxury item.

Rather than continually shielding consumers from Obamacare’s price hikes with subsidies, why not repeal the mandates that caused the pain in the first place?

The numbers speak for themselves. In 2013, just before Obamacare took full effect, the average unsubsidized premium for individual coverage was $197 per month. By 2017, it had nearly doubled to $393. Family plans saw a 140% jump in that same period, from $426 to $1,021. Today, a typical family policy without subsidies costs $2,000 to $2,500 per month.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, average family premiums climbed from $13,770 in 2010 to $25,572 in 2024 — an 85% increase. And that “Cadillac plan” price tag now buys you higher deductibles and fewer benefits than a cheap pre-Obamacare policy.

Younger workers don’t even know what hit them. They’ve inherited a system designed to fleece them and can’t afford to opt out.

Even employer-based insurance has suffered. Since 2014, family premiums have risen 52%, while workers’ share has jumped 31%. Deductibles for individual plans have increased 53%, reaching $1,787 in 2024. Americans now pay more out of pocket for less protection.

This wasn’t an accident. It was baked into the law. Obamacare banned insurers from pricing plans based on risk, age, or gender. That shifted costs from older, sicker Americans to younger, healthier ones. Those who don’t qualify for subsidies pay top dollar for a bloated, mandatory benefits package they didn’t ask for.

Meanwhile, over 70 million lower-income Americans got dumped onto Medicaid — and Republicans went along with it. If Medicaid expansion is the new baseline, then at least fix the rest of the system for the middle class.

Caught in the middle

The political class loves to talk about the millions who gained “coverage” through Medicaid expansion and premium tax credits. They ignore the millions who earn too much to qualify for substantial assistance but too little to afford the staggering premiums.

These Americans are Obamacare’s silent victims — and they’re forced to choose between health coverage and other basic needs.

Subsidies don’t solve the problem. They mask it. The real crisis is the cost of health care itself.

Republicans already get hammered for supposedly “cutting Medicaid,” even when they’re only targeting fraud. They pay the political price for Obamacare without reaping any of the reform benefits. So why not go on offense and start dismantling the cartel?

Demand real reform

Instead of rubber-stamping another round of subsidies, Republicans should demand one simple trade-off: Let states offer unregulated, cheaper health care plans.

Don’t extend subsidies for the wealthy or the idle. And if temporary subsidies are unavoidable, they should be tied to an overhaul next year.

The signature feature of Obamacare was turning catastrophic coverage into a luxury item. Letting states revive affordable catastrophic plans would free up cash for direct primary care — and crack the cartel’s grip on pricing.

RELATED: Pushing back against the big Medicaid lie

Yurii Karvatskyi via iStock/Getty Images

And that’s just the beginning. Congress should allow health savings accounts, self-employment deductions, and employer exclusions to apply to alternative options like health-sharing ministries and concierge care. Workers should be able to use HSA funds to pay their own premiums or direct care memberships.

Employers should receive the same tax benefits for contributing to an employee’s HSA as they would for funding a traditional insurance plan. That gives workers real purchasing power and puts pressure on the cartel to compete.

Break the cartel. Rebuild the market.

Even if Republicans won’t fully repeal Obamacare, they must scrap the ban on physician-owned hospitals. That carve-out handed a monopoly to corporate health systems and helped bankrupt rural hospitals — a crisis both parties now pretend to solve with more subsidies.

You can’t subsidize your way out of a bottomless pit of inflationary grift. The only real solution is to let Americans escape the sinkhole that turned affordable health care into unaffordable sick care.

This is the GOP’s last chance to fix what it failed to kill. Make it count.

Will Trump’s Free-Market Drug Pricing Solution Cut Out Greedy Middlemen?

An executive order instructs the HHS secretary to negotiate with drug manufacturers so that Americans pay the same low prices that others do.

Trump’s pharma fix might make Reagan squirm — but it’s needed



President Trump on Monday signed an executive order to lower prescription drug prices for Americans by up to 80%. The move — called the “most favored nations” pricing policy — seeks to require pharmaceutical companies to charge U.S. consumers no more than what they charge consumers in other developed nations.

To many Americans, this may sound like simple fairness. After all, why should U.S. citizens pay two, three, or even four times more for the exact same medication than citizens in countries like France, Japan, or Canada?

When the market has been effectively captured, Trump’s executive order is not government overreach but rather a corrective intervention.

But this price disparity is not accidental — it’s systemic. For decades, the United States has quietly subsidized the rest of the world’s access to pharmaceuticals.

Global drug manufacturers earn their profits not in Berlin or Brussels, but in Des Moines and Dallas. In effect, Americans have been the financial backbone of an international pricing scheme that benefits other nations at our expense.

President Trump’s executive order directly challenges this arrangement. It stipulates that if a drug company offers a product to another country at a lower price, the United States should receive the same rate. It’s a reciprocal principle: no more preferential treatment for foreign buyers.

This is a significant departure from business as usual in Washington, and it’s not hard to see why the policy is resonating with the public. At face value, it offers a rare and overdue measure of accountability in a system where Americans are consistently overcharged for lifesaving medication. For anyone who has ever had to ration insulin, split pills, or go without treatment due to cost, this action likely feels like justice.

What free market?

But for those of us who believe strongly in the free market — and I count myself among them — this executive order raises uncomfortable questions.

In principle, I oppose government interference in pricing. I’ve long warned that when the government inserts itself into private industry, the result is usually distortion, inefficiency, and unintended consequences. History offers plenty of examples. In the 1990s, then-first lady Hillary Clinton’s health care proposals — including a federal mandate that vaccine manufacturers sell to the government at deeply discounted prices — led to supply shortages and industry retreat. When profit disappears, so does innovation and availability. That pattern tends to repeat.

So why am I not condemning President Trump’s latest move outright?

Because we no longer operate in a truly free market. In the pharmaceutical industry, the system is already so burdened with lobbying, regulation, and insurance complexity that the idea of unencumbered market exchange is little more than a fiction. Prices are not driven by consumer choice or transparent competition. Instead, they are the product of negotiations between drug companies, insurance providers, and governments — while the average American is left footing the bill without a seat at the table.

In this environment, where the market has been effectively captured, Trump’s executive order can be seen not as government overreach but as a corrective intervention. It's an attempt to level a playing field that was rigged long ago. The United States is the single largest buyer of pharmaceuticals in the world, and yet we have consistently refused to leverage that bargaining power.

Every other country negotiates drug prices. We don’t. That isn’t capitalism; it’s capitulation.

A necessary disruption

To be clear, I am not advocating long-term price controls. The risks of such policies are well-documented: reduced innovation, fewer treatment options, and deeper government dependency. But I also refuse to pretend that what we currently have is a functioning free market. It isn’t. And continuing to prop up a broken system in the name of “principle” is not conservatism — it’s negligence.

We should still scrutinize the details. We should remain skeptical. But we should also acknowledge this: The current system is unsustainable. Americans are being overcharged for medications so that other countries can pay less. Call it what you want, but don’t call it capitalism — or justice. I’d call it a redistribution scheme masquerading as market logic.

President Trump is right on one crucial point: America has been getting ripped off for far too long. His executive order is a necessary disruption to a system that has failed the very people it was supposed to serve.

It’s time we stopped playing the chump.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Plugged in, checked out: The Dept. of Energy needs a reality surge



The Department of Energy needs a complete overhaul.

Congress established the DOE in 1977 in response to the 1973 oil crisis, consolidating a patchwork of energy-related programs under one roof. The department took over the management of nuclear programs, national research labs, and a variety of alternative energy efforts. Its 2025 budget tops $50 billion. It supports 14,000 employees and a staggering 95,000 contractors across 83 field locations.

The Department of Government Efficiency should scrutinize the DOE’s effectiveness like any other federal agency. But this department demands a different kind of review. The issue isn’t just waste or mismanagement. It’s mission.

Energy is the lifeblood of any advanced society. The DOE should pursue one overriding goal: making America energy-independent with a long-term strategy for cheap, abundant power. That’s not what it’s doing.

Yes, the energy sector should remain a free-market enterprise. But it’s also a national asset. Energy production and distribution are essential to American sovereignty, economic security, and global influence. That makes the DOE more than just another bloated bureaucracy — it’s a strategic liability unless restructured with purpose.

If the DOE can’t define that purpose, the DOGE must.

Rapid population growth, AI, crypto mining, robotics, and automation will all drive explosive demand for electricity.

One of the department’s core missions should be to secure American energy independence. This is not just good policy — it’s a national security imperative.

Wars are won or lost based on the ability to fuel military and industrial operations. If America can’t meet its own energy needs, it risks becoming dependent on hostile regimes that can — and will — weaponize energy supplies against us.

Previous administrations have sabotaged this mission. The DOE should not focus on environmental goals like reducing carbon emissions. Those objectives often conflict with the department’s strategic purpose. “Climate change” is not a scientific certainty — it’s an ideological construct. Sea levels have risen 400 feet over the past 20,000 years, submerging the ruins of countless ancient civilizations, and none of that was caused by human industry.

Yet the Energy Department continues to throw billions at preventing a hypothetical sea rise of just a few feet — this time supposedly caused by human activity. That’s not just wasteful; it’s dangerously off mission. Nearly 40% of recent DOE budgets have gone to renewables and carbon capture. That funding should be powering the country — not chasing climate fantasies.

It’s absurd. America holds vast fossil fuel reserves — thanks to innovations like hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling — that can provide cheap, reliable energy. These resources can make us energy-independent and globally competitive. The DOE should clear the way for fossil fuel extraction and pipeline construction, starting with permitting on federal lands and aggressive deregulation.

At the same time, the department should end all spending on alternative energy development — except nuclear.

The free market, not the federal government, should drive innovation. The DOE needs to stop subsidizing every corner of the energy industry, fossil fuels included. Government handouts distort markets, discourage competition, and reward political connections instead of performance. Cronyism, fraud, and corporate capture follow wherever subsidies go. A healthy, well-capitalized U.S. energy sector doesn’t need government favors — it needs government to get out of the way. Let consumers, not bureaucrats, decide the winners.

To sharpen its focus, the Department of Energy must shed every responsibility not central to its mission. Environmental policy belongs with the Environmental Protection Agency. Government-run electricity operations, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, should be sold to private firms.

The DOE has no business in genomics. It should transfer its Human Genome Project work elsewhere. The Pentagon — not the DOE — should manage the nuclear weapons stockpile. The department should also end its subsidies for synthetic fuels like ethanol, which distort agricultural markets and drive up food prices. Many of its remaining research functions should be reassigned to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or the National Science Foundation.

The department should also abandon appliance efficiency mandates that degrade performance, frustrate consumers, and increase costs.

It must reject the Biden administration’s bloated Green New Deal agenda, which has dragged the DOE into a fantasyland of bureaucratic overreach. The department should withdraw from the energy-related provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and related executive orders. These distractions must be repealed and the associated spending eliminated immediately.

The DOE needs to recognize the direction the world is headed: toward an electricity-dominated future. Electric vehicles are only the beginning. Rapid population growth, AI, crypto mining, robotics, and automation will all drive explosive demand for electricity. We’ll need fossil fuels to supply the grid for now — but that supply will become harder to access just as demand surges. The DOE must plan accordingly, not wander off chasing green illusions.

The coming surge in electricity demand cries out for a modern-day Manhattan Project — this time led by the Department of Energy. The DOE should lead a national effort to radically expand, modernize, and harden the electric grid. It must accelerate the development of small-scale nuclear fission reactors and push to make nuclear fusion commercially viable.

Nuclear energy — especially fusion — is clean, powerful, and virtually limitless. While the private sector should continue optimizing fossil fuel and alternative energy technologies, the DOE must draw up the blueprint for America’s energy future. It should clear regulatory obstacles that block meaningful progress.

So what should the DOGE do with the DOE? Strip away every distraction and narrow its mission to one goal: ensuring America has cheap, abundant, reliable energy. Everything else belongs on the chopping block.

Smoke-free surge stalled by feds clinging to old habits



The U.S. nicotine market is undergoing a historic shift — one that should be celebrated as a major public health breakthrough. A new Goldman Sachs report forecasts that smoke-free nicotine products will surpass cigarettes in consumption by 2025 and come close to matching them in revenue and profit by 2035.

This shift isn’t the result of government policy. It’s happening because consumers are making better choices. Yet federal regulators appear determined to stand in the way.

Nicotine may be addictive, but it isn’t what causes cancer, heart disease, or emphysema. The culprit is combustion.

The data couldn’t be clearer. Millions of smokers are abandoning cigarettes for reduced-risk products like vaping devices, nicotine pouches, and heated tobacco. Cigarette sales are plummeting — from 12.9 billion packs in 2016 to a projected 2.7 billion by 2035.

This trend should give public health agencies a reason to cheer. Instead, the Food and Drug Administration is dragging its feet, imposing policies that make it harder — not easier — for adult smokers to switch to safer alternatives. The FDA’s obstruction risks slowing one of the most promising developments in decades for reducing smoking-related deaths.

Free market for the win

Despite the flood of misinformation, the market is succeeding where decades of public health campaigns have failed: It’s making cigarettes obsolete. Given the choice, consumers are ditching smoke for safer alternatives that deliver nicotine without combustion’s deadly byproducts. This isn’t just progress — it’s a landmark victory for harm reduction.

The free market deserves credit for this shift. While government anti-smoking efforts have leaned heavily on punitive tactics — higher taxes, grotesque warning labels, and outright bans — real declines in smoking have come where reduced-risk nicotine products are legal and accessible. In the United States, this transformation is unfolding not because of regulators, but in spite of them.

At the heart of the problem lies the FDA’s Pre-Market Tobacco Application process. Supposedly designed to vet new nicotine products, the PMTA system has become a bureaucratic bottleneck. It’s opaque, glacial, and unreasonably strict. The result? A legal market riddled with uncertainty — and an illegal one thriving in its place.

Today, more than 60% of e-vapor sales come from illicit, unregulated products. That’s not because consumers prefer them. It’s because the FDA has made it nearly impossible for legitimate companies to get reduced-risk products approved and onto shelves. The agency has created a regulatory vacuum — and the black market has filled it.

Federal foot-dragging

The dysfunction doesn’t stop with vaping. Heated tobacco products and nicotine pouches — both widely recognized abroad as effective harm reduction tools — face the same bureaucratic purgatory. Meanwhile, traditional cigarettes remain widely available and profitable. If public health were truly the FDA’s goal, it would fast-track reduced-risk alternatives, not prop up the very products causing the most harm.

But the FDA’s foot-dragging has real consequences. More Americans will stay hooked on cigarettes longer than they otherwise would. The data is in: Alternative nicotine products help people quit smoking. Blocking legal access to them doesn’t protect public health — it prolongs addiction and guarantees more smoking-related deaths. By stalling the shift to safer products, the FDA is effectively locking millions into a habit that kills roughly half its users.

Regulatory inertia also risks stifling competition in the industry. Cigarettes still generate 66% of industry revenue and 70% of profits. The companies leading the charge toward a smoke-free future — those that don’t sell cigarettes — face the stiffest regulatory headwinds. In effect, the government is shielding the cigarette market rather than accelerating its collapse.

A better way exists. Federal regulators could champion this shift instead of obstructing it. The FDA should fast-track approvals for products with significantly lower health risks than cigarettes. Doing so would give consumers legal access to safer options while shrinking the black market.

The public also deserves the truth. Nicotine may be addictive, but it isn’t what causes cancer, heart disease, or emphysema. The culprit is combustion. And the longer that confusion persists, the more smokers the FDA leaves behind.

Outcomes or optics?

Federal regulators should stop protecting the tobacco industry and start supporting companies that are moving the U.S. away from combustible cigarettes. That means giving independent vape makers and harm-reduction innovators a fighting chance, instead of letting Big Tobacco tighten its grip through regulatory capture.

Regulation should make cigarettes less appealing — not safer alternatives harder to get. Risk-proportionate rules would prioritize public health by nudging smokers toward lower-risk products, not driving them into the black market or back to Marlboro.

Goldman Sachs’ latest data shows the market is doing what public health campaigns never could: making smoking obsolete. If regulators got out of the way — or better yet, helped — the fall of Big Tobacco could come even faster.

Cigarettes are dying. The FDA can either help bury them or keep dragging out their final act. The question is whether public health officials care more about optics or outcomes. The market has already chosen. It’s time for the government to catch up.

Despite PR Pivot, Meta Is Still A Monopoly And A Threat To A Free Society

The FTC is not suing Meta for its past leftism or current MAGA-ism but for its longstanding, documented monopolism.