Intro:

When our first laws were put in place, there was a priority to address the most pressing issues of the time such as independence, property, and governance. As time marched forward, innovation created gaps in these laws. The invention of the lightbulb meant work could be done at all hours of the day calling for laws to protect workers’ rights. As Henry Ford experimented with his model T car, provisions had to be put in place to protect those on the road during the transition from horse and buggy to automobiles. More recently, the new frontier of the internet required laws and regulations to protect digital property. These laws were difficult to legislate and enact due to the blurry lines of privacy rights. Now, as crime has become digital, the US needs to create and update its laws to include the vast territory of cyberspace. 

 

Problem:

Outdated cyber laws make prevention, investigation, and prosecution difficult due to inconsistent enforcement and unclear authority and jurisdiction. Regulations and agencies such as the CFAA, the FBI, and CISA have served the US well in the past, keeping cyber activity in line. However, technology is rapidly developing while the law is not. Because of this, the laws and agencies are falling short in deterring and catching cyber criminals. 

 

Why it matters:

This matters because the US does not have a strong legal system for punishing cyber criminals in a way that allows cyber crime to go unsolved or at least go too far. Further, what kind of evidence is needed to convict cybercriminals and how does the offense of a cyber crime warrant a punishment? Cyber crime affects all citizens of the US which is why it is imperative we protect them. According to a 2025 Pew Research Center survey, 73% of US adults have been a victim of an online scam or attack like phishing. This results in identity theft, compromised passwords for businesses, and financial debt. The average person who contributes to the economy and society needs to be safe from these kinds of threats. 

Additionally, regular citizens are not the only people affected by cyber crime. The US government is a high-risk victim of thousands of security attacks per year. While the government has stronger security standards than the average person, the federal government experiences tens of thousands of cyberattacks daily. The risk is never nonexistent. Security standards for both the government and the general population need to be stronger in order to protect the nation from nation-state threats and economic and social discord.

 

Solution:

The United States Congress should establish the Cyber Law Modernization Act which will clarify federal cybercrime statutes and give agencies like the SEC and CISA explicit cyber authority. For instance, this act will amend the language of the CFAA, specifically the “exceeds authorized access” language, in order to allow a broader application of the CFAA such as when information is legally accessed but used inappropriately. This way, loopholes in the cyber legal framework can be reduced. Additionally, this act will allow agencies more authority to make cyber work safer with protections for businesses, customers, and investors. This can include defining a baseline for cyber hygiene standards and enforcing timely disclosure of significant cyber incidents. 

 

Currently, cybersecurity regulation is a shared responsibility among the FBI, CISA, the FTC, and the SEC. With multiple agencies comes overlapping mandates and gaps where each agency thinks another agency has authority when no one does. This can lead to confusion as to which agency leads in a particular agency. Additionally, agencies may compete for resources or credit which can slow coordination and undermine trust. This is especially prevalent when dealing with information that is deemed classified by an agency. This limits what information is shared across agencies leading to an incomplete scope of the issue. When major attacks occur, a cross-agency response is required but bureaucratic bottlenecks delay the process..

 

Conclusion:

In practice, more unity and clarity among the cyber community will provide legal certainty by reducing overreach claims and ambiguity of legal breadth, as well as stronger deterrence by closing loopholes exploited by cybercriminals and negligent actors.

In his post-inaugural rally in 2025, Trump said that “tariffs… is the most beautiful word in the dictionary.”  Over the past several years, Washington has increasingly treated trade with China as a national security issue. Tariffs, export bans, and investment restrictions have become the tools of choice to curb Beijing’s technological and industrial ambitions. But these sweeping measures have come with a price, and Americans are the ones paying it.

Since 2018, tariffs have cost the average U.S. household around $2,000 a year, raising prices across everything from coffee to couches. Not only have they raised costs, but have invited retaliatory measures. Beijing’s restrictions to importing soybeans from the US hit American farmers especially hard. Although Xi and Trump have reached a temporary truce,  farmers across the country will struggle to recover from damages. The current deal is merely a bandaid. The US has suspended the heightened reciprocal tariffs until November 2026, not eliminated them. This temporary pause confirms that the most immediate gains come from reversing the self-inflicted damage of broad tariffs on low-risk goods. What was meant to strengthen U.S. resilience has instead strained domestic industries, increased costs for consumers, and reduced our leverage abroad. Defending U.S. interests doesn’t have to entail economic self-sabotage. The real challenge is to separate what truly threatens national security from what doesn’t, and to craft trade policies that reflect that distinction.

A smarter way forward: targeted tariffs

The United States has to move away from broad-based tariffs toward targeted trade controls. Instead of treating all Chinese imports as threats, policymakers should tailor restrictions based on the risk posed by each sector.

1. Protect what’s critical. Where trade directly fuels China’s military modernization, such as advanced semiconductors, chipmaking equipment, and sensitive AI tech, controls must remain firm. These are legitimate security risks, and limiting access is worth the economic cost.
2. Trade where it’s safe. Selling soybeans to China doesn’t endanger U.S. national security. In fact, agricultural exports are a vital lifeline for American farmers. Rolling back tariffs on low-risk goods could pave the way for reciprocal Chinese concessions, reviving markets that sustain rural America.
3. Collaborate where it’s necessary. Take solar energy: China dominates over 75% of every key stage of solar panel production. Cutting off these imports entirely would undermine US climate goals. The better approach is dual, allowing critical imports now while investing in domestic manufacturing through initiatives like the CHIPS and Inflation Reduction Acts.

Some argue that broad tariffs are a show of strength as we enter a “new Cold War” with China. But evidence suggests otherwise. Tariffs are a tax paid almost entirely by US consumers and importing firms. This burden takes a larger share of income from poorer households. Rather than hurting Beijing, these tariffs have pushed China to diversify supply chains and accelerate self-reliance, reducing US leverage in the long run.

Targeted measures, by contrast, work. The October 2022 export controls on semiconductor equipment effectively disrupted China’s high-end chip production and slowed its military and AI capabilities in the short term, without triggering the kind of widespread economy damaging trade war seen with the broad tariffs. This is what effective tariffs looks like: limiting strategic vulnerabilities while keeping the US economy open, innovative, and competitive.

The bottom line

Tariffs were meant to protect America. Instead, they’ve taxed Americans. If the goal is to preserve both national security and economic strength, the answer lies not in isolationism, but in protecting sensitive technologies while maintaining cooperation where it serves US interests. The future of US trade policy shouldn’t be about choosing between security and prosperity. With targeted trade measures, America can have both!

 

Texans want a voice in federal border and immigration policy. We have borne the brunt of what the federal government has not addressed. Now lies a pivotal point for Texans of all political ideologies to demand more fiscally responsible policies. 

In the last four years, Texas’ taxpayers have funded $11 billion into Operation Lone Star’s (OLS) efforts to tackle increasing irregular immigration. On the opposing end are Texans running nonprofits and community organizing to support migrants’ legal, material, and psychosocial support.

These initiatives are the results of an unresponsive federal government. OLS’s largest proponent, Governor Abbott, requested that President Trump reimburse the Operation’s cost. Texan migrants rights groups, upon losing federal assistance, are searching for local government funding.

Both sides are bound to their criticisms. But they demand a federal government receptive to their needs. Because, for how long can Texans continue taking matters into their own hands?

In this last state election, 2.9 million Texans showed up to vote on Proposition 17. The proposition – now constitutional amendment – prevents property tax increases on border-county-landowners with state-installed border security. Interestingly, the larger support margins came from countries away from the border. These Texans view border security as means to prevent problems that could reach their counties. Furthermore, they want policy solutions that work in the financial interests of the Texans implementing it. 

But what if our neighbor Mexico could alleviate these burdens before migrants reach our border? What if U.S.-Mexico collaboration could provide Texans both security enforcement and migrants rights, all for a fraction of the cost? 

Meet COMAR, Mexico’s cost-efficient Refugee Assistance Commission. Last year, COMAR processed almost 79,000 asylum applications at around $107 dollars per applicant. Compare that to last year’s Border Patrol’s apprehensions each worth $3,975 dollars. COMAR has shifted the U.S.’s cost burden away from Border Patrol and onto Mexico. 

But this year, when the U.S. federal government cut back its funding to the United Nations, COMAR lost 25 percent of its annual budget, equal to $2.1 million dollars. Currently, COMAR is processing a similar amount of applications as it did last year with only three-fourths the budget. As a result, asylum seekers are waiting six to nine months for their applications to process instead of the typical one to two. These longer waiting periods increase the probability of asylum seekers to enter organized crime or to join caravans heading to our border. The federal government can prevent this vulnerable group from interfering with its border by recommitting to fund COMAR.

Texans are in the perfect position to bring their voices to the national stage.  

Right now, both of our senators John Cornyn and Ted Cruz form part of the current Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Border Security and Immigration. This Subcommittee holds a track record of meeting infrequently, and are bound to continue doing so without the pressure to reconvene. Therefore, us Texans, regardless of our support for current border policies, need to push for constant review of our tax dollars going to border spending.

We need to contact Senators Cornyn and Cruz to get the Subcommittee to slightly amend the Big Beautiful Bill (BBB). BBB Section 90002(a)(1), which allocates $4.1 billion to Border Patrol agent recruitments and training, should redirect a miniscule $15 million to support COMAR over the next four years. This will allot $8.4 million to relieve COMAR’s worker capacity and $6.6 million to implement research on asylum-seeking migrants’ behaviors across Mexico. Over time, our federal government will be on track to understand how it can produce the most-cost effective combination of funding cheaper Mexican migration management systems with costlier American border enforcement. 

Texans have dealt long enough with picking up the federal government’s slack. For mere millions, the U.S. can work with Mexico’s COMAR to save Texas billions. Let’s speak up.