DON'T MISS: Our Publisher Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry has a new op-ed in the Washington Post on the administration's new H-1B visa fee policy.

Finally Some Good News On The Natalism Front

The latest Pew Research survey on American attitudes toward declining fertility offers some encouraging news for those of us concerned about demographic decline. Conducted in early September with a robust sample of 8,750 adults, the data reveals growing public awareness of birth rate challenges, even as Americans remain ambivalent about government intervention.

The headline finding deserves attention: 53% of Americans now believe fewer people having children would negatively impact the country, up 6 points from just last year. This represents meaningful movement in public opinion. The pronatalist case appears to be gaining traction beyond policy circles and Elon fans and entering mainstream consciousness.

Particularly notable is the shift among men, with 59% now viewing declining birth rates negatively compared to 54% last year. Women have also moved in this direction, from 42% to 48%. Within our own coalition, Republican concern increased from 60% to 63%, though Democrats showed larger movement (37% to 44%). The narrowing gap between parties on this issue suggests declining fertility may be evolving from a niche conservative concern into an issue with broader appeal.

The bad news: while most Americans now recognize the problem, a clear majority (56%) still believe the federal government should have no role—major or minor—in encouraging people to have children. Only 32% support any government role at all.

The policy preference data offers some surprising insights. Among the minority who do support government encouragement of childbearing, tax credits for parents dominate with 82% support—a natural fit for conservative family policy. But paid family leave mandates enjoy 75% support in this group, and even free childcare garners 64% backing. These ideas are more challenging for mainstream Republicans.

Most striking is the partisan breakdown on specific policies. While Republicans and Democrats who support government involvement show similar enthusiasm for tax credits (81% and 82%), Democrats are far more supportive of paid leave mandates (85% vs. 67%), free childcare (84% vs. 48%), and fertility treatment coverage (71% vs. 48%). Republicans maintain slight advantages on less intrusive measures like awareness campaigns about age-related fertility decline.

Support for direct monthly payments to parents is low: 42% overall, just 31% among Republicans.

So there is work to be done. But overall, the news is very good.

Policy News You Need To Know

#VibeShift #SaltMining — Did you hear? Bari Weiss sold her outlet, The Free Press, to Paramount, for a huge chunk of money. Not only that, but she will be editor in chief of CBS News, including properties like 60 Minutes. Talk about a vibe shift. Also, the tears of left wing journalists have been pouring all day on X and Bluesky. Congratulations to Bari! It's a good time to be alive.

#Shutdown — OMB is asserting a novel legal interpretation of the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019 (GEFTA) that could significantly reshape shutdown dynamics by arguing that furloughed federal workers aren't automatically entitled to back pay without specific congressional appropriation. Axios has the scoop. This is seeking to increase the political costs of the shutdown for Democrats. The administration's position hinges on a January 25, 2019 amendment adding the phrase "subject to the enactment of appropriations Acts ending the lapse," which OMB Director Russ Vought interprets as requiring Congress to explicitly authorize back pay for each shutdown rather than GEFTA serving as a standing authorization. While this contradicts earlier guidance from the Council of Economic Advisers and OPM, senior administration officials argue they're seeking needed clarity on ambiguous statutory language and note that the 2019 joint resolution specifically appropriated funds for that shutdown's "obligations incurred," suggesting congressional intent that back pay isn't automatic. Trust on Director Vought to stretch every legal avenue to the limit.

#HigherEd — AEI's Rick Hess has raised concerns about the admin's "Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education," which offers nine universities priority access to federal grants and increased overhead payments in exchange for adopting reforms including tuition freezes, mandatory admissions testing, grade inflation measures, foreign enrollment caps, and free speech protections. While Hess acknowledges that many of these policy goals are substantively appealing, and notes that higher education leaders who accepted federal directives under Obama and Biden are being hypocritical in their opposition, he argues the compact lacks statutory grounding and represents executive overreach that Republicans would rightly condemn if initiated by a Democratic administration. We admire Hess's work, but some feel that the day of "Democrats might use this against us" is far gone.

#LGBT #ReligiousLiberty #PublicHealth — The Supreme Court today is hearing oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar, a case that could fundamentally reshape the boundaries between state regulatory authority and First Amendment protections in professional settings. Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor in Colorado, represented by the great pro-religious liberty group Alliance Defending Freedom, is challenging the state's Minor Conversion Therapy Law, which bans mental health professionals from providing therapy aimed at changing a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity. Chiles contends that Colorado has impermissibly targeted specific viewpoints within the counseling relationship, effectively prohibiting her from offering faith-based guidance to clients who voluntarily seek help reconciling their religious beliefs with questions about sexuality or gender. The policy stakes extend well beyond this single practice. This isn't just about the absurdity of trying to prevent giving "conversion therapy" to gender-confused minors. If states can regulate what licensed professionals say to clients based on the ideological content of that speech, it could open the door to government control over a wide range of professional advice, from pastoral counseling to medical consultations, whenever the state deems certain viewpoints "harmful."

#Antifa — With the controversy over President Trump deploying the National Guard to combat domestic extremists, it's worth looking again at the Center for Renewing America's policy brief, authored by Ken Cuccinelli and Adam Turner, which argues that the President has broad constitutional and statutory authority to deploy military forces for domestic law enforcement. They wrote it in the context of border enforcement but their argument clearly applies to domestic law enforcement more broadly. Their central thesis challenges the common belief that the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) prohibits such deployment. They contend the PCA was designed to prevent U.S. Marshals from commandeering military forces, not to limit presidential authority, and contains a proviso allowing military use when "expressly authorized by the Constitution" or an Act of Congress. The brief argues this exception is satisfied by both the President's Article II powers as Commander-in-Chief and chief law enforcement officer, and by statutory authorities including the Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. §§ 252-253), which permits military deployment when unlawful obstructions make normal judicial proceedings impracticable or when people are deprived of constitutional rights. The authors cite historical precedents including Washington's response to the Whiskey Rebellion and Reconstruction-era deployments, along with legal opinions from the Bush administration, to support their position that presidential military authority for domestic law enforcement remains constitutionally protected and practically viable.

#Census — Senator Banks has written a letter that raises concerns about the 2020 Census methodology and its political implications. He tweeted that the census was a "fraud." His letter argues that the Census Bureau's adoption of "differential privacy" techniques led to significant miscounts across fourteen states. According to post-enumeration surveys, the census undercounted six states (most severely Arkansas at 5.04%) while overcounting eight others (notably Hawaii at 6.79%), which Banks contends resulted in at least six congressional seats and Electoral College votes being misallocated to favor Democrats. Beyond the apportionment issue, Banks highlights two additional problems: first, that differential privacy's intentional data noise may have corrupted redistricting data at the voting-district level, meaning states cannot reliably know their true district populations; and second, that the census counted illegal aliens without tracking citizenship status, effectively granting additional representation and federal funding to states with larger undocumented populations. Banks is requesting that Commerce republish the 2020 data using unaltered figures, abandon differential privacy for 2030, and include a citizenship question in the next census.

#Pot #LawAndOrder — A recent study found that over 40% of drivers who died in motor vehicle collisions tested positive for active THC in their blood, with average levels (30.7 ng/mL) far above the legal thresholds for impairment, which are typically set between 2 and 5 ng/mL in most states.

#TheEconomy — According to an internal proprietary estimate by the private equity firm Carlyle Group, just 17,000 jobs were created in September. Bloomberg has more.