America First: Can it be squared with proposed 'annexation' of Greenland, Canada and the Panama Canal?

The "America First" slogan often used by candidate Donald Trump in his first and second presidential campaigns might sound on its surface to indicate disengagement from global affairs and a focus on domestic priorities. So, it may seem puzzling that President Donald Trump is talking about annexing Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, a NATO ally; Canada, a sovereign country and a NATO ally; and retaking the Panama Canal.

If, however, you see Trump's pronouncement within the context of global economic and military competition in what he perceives is a zero-sum world (a win by one side must be a loss by another), then this kind of rhetoric begins to make sense. Such a view actually implicitly presumes that resources available to global society are finite or, at the very least, worryingly scarce and therefore must be produced domestically for security reasons or extracted willingly or unwillingly from other countries.

Trouble is, there is a very long list of important minerals that the United States must get either partially or wholly from other countries in order to maintain the smooth functioning of its modern technical economy. In addition, America, which had previously been a breadbasket to the world, is now a net importer of food—though this is on a value basis, not necessarily on a tonnage or calorie basis.

DOGE and (mis)understanding AI

The general narrative in the media regarding artificial intelligence (AI) is binary. AI is either the greatest human invention ever, so powerful it will catapult us into an age of abundance for all and solve our environmental problems as well OR it is the most momentous human invention ever which is so dangerous that it could wipe out human civilization (and therefore must be tightly controlled or abandoned altogether). The trouble with binary narratives is that they fail to incorporate hundreds or even thousands of pieces of information that lead to much more nuanced narratives that might help us understand AI.

Henry Farrell is a professor of international affairs at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies who recently published an article (along with three co-authors) entitled "Large AI models are cultural and social technologies." The article appeared in Science magazine earlier this month. So what could a professor of international affairs possibly have to say about AI? Well, it turns out quite a lot. And, in a related article, Farrell shows how our societal understanding of AI sheds light on the activities of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) that seeks to tear out and discard large portions of the U.S. federal government. More on that later.

First, it's worth understanding what AI really is and Farrell provides a surprisingly succinct explanation of the variant that is most in the news today, Large Language Models:

Scented dangers: Who regulates scented products?

The internet and airwaves are full of advertisements offering to make you, your home, your car and your workplace smell better. It all seems innocuous because our sense of smell is always turned on, and we seem to be fine as we breath in scents from household cleaners, body soap, shampoo, cologne, scented candles and air fresheners. But that perception is belied by invisible dangers from these products.

The headline for a piece summarizing a recent study regarding particulate pollution from indoor scented products says it all: "Scented products cause indoor air pollution on par with car exhaust." According the study, scented products are "a significant source of nanosized particles small enough to get deep into your lungs, posing a potential risk to respiratory health."

That's bad enough. But who actually regulates what goes into these products, many of which contain chemically manufactured scents? Here's what the U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says on its website: "[I]f a product such as a shower gel is intended only to cleanse the body, or a perfume or cologne is intended only to make a person smell good, it’s a cosmetic. The law doesn’t require cosmetics to have FDA approval before they go on the market."

Trade war danger: China could quickly strangle American tech with metals cutoff

There's no telling exactly where the Trump administration's trade war is going as the president authorizes tariffs and then quickly suspends them, only to authorize them again and suspend them again or provide waivers for certain industries. While tariffs on narrowly defined categories of goods to guard against unfair competition may be workable, the administration's shotgun approach to tariffs risks a cutoff of strategic minerals that could strangle America's tech industry.

As I've written before, the United States is dangerously dependent on other countries for a wide-ranging list of metals and, in some cases, completely dependent. (For more on that, see here, here, here and here.) Responses to tariffs do not have to take the form of retaliatory tariffs by the targeted country. They can take the form of export restrictions that deny the United States key commodities and products necessary to important industries.

China currently controls 69 percent of rare earth elements (REE) mine production and almost 90 percent of the processing of these elements. REEs are a group of metals, often found in deposits together, that are critical for modern electronics (such as computer hard disks, smartphones, and cameras); strong magnets used in hybrid cars and wind turbines; X-ray and MRI scanning equipment; aircraft engines; and crude oil refining. This is just a partial list. There are no viable substitutes for these metals available at any scale that would be meaningful.

No matter what Elon Musk thinks, government cannot and should not be run like a business

There is a so-called U. S. government "efficiency" drive currently underway delegated by President Donald Trump to unelected billionaire Elon Musk. Whether Musk has the authority to do what he is doing has become a matter for federal courts (for example, see here and here). In this piece I want to discuss the underlying assumption behind Musk's approach and see if it makes sense, namely, whether the government should be run like a business. Spoiler alert: It shouldn't be and can't be.

That's because there are important overarching differences between the goals of government and those of a business that explain why strictly imposing business-style management on government will not work. First and foremost, business owners are allowed to freely make two important choices: 1) which products or services to sell and 2) which customers to target for those products and/or services.

Government, by contrast, does not get to choose either of these. Government must serve all residents of a jurisdiction, whether it is a city, a state or a country, and provide them with goods and services as determined by elected representatives put in office by constituents of that jurisdiction. (I'm assuming a democratic form of government. But even in autocratic regimes, no one person can determine what goods and services are necessary for every locale and so others, appointed or elected, help make and implement those decisions.)