When Trump Sued Himself: The $1.776 billion Slush Fund

Richard Epstein examines Trump’s proposal to send Americans $5,000 checks, questioning who would pay, whether the giveaway makes economic sense, and what congressional approval it would require. He discusses the difference between political promises and bribery, the constitutional limits on presidential spending, and the electoral risks of sweeping cash giveaways and whether a constitutional amendment should impose an upper age limit on presidents.

Richard Epstein takes a look at Trump’s war with Iran and a strategy Epstein sees as dangerously muddled. From the Strait of Hormuz and soaring geopolitical stakes to Trump’s faith in dealmaking, Epstein argues that half-measures have turned a potentially decisive conflict into a grinding war of attrition—with consequences that could reshape America’s alliances and the global balance of power.

Richard Epstein unpacks the antitrust battle over the proposed Paramount Skydance–Warner Bros. Discovery merger—and what it reveals about the changing economics of Hollywood. From AI and labor unrest to regulatory overreach and interstate competition, Epstein argues that the industry’s real threat isn’t consolidation but rapid technological and economic disruption, making the case that blocking the deal could do more harm than good.

Richard Epstein and Charles C. W. Cooke discuss Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey—its departures from Homer, its moral themes, and its spectacular scale. They also explore aesthetics, virtue, Greek and Roman law, and the relationship between ordinary moral intuition and formal legal reasoning.

Can the world's most popular sport be improved? Richard Epstein thinks so, and argues that soccer's rules are overdue for reform. From red cards and penalty kicks to VAR, substitutions, stoppage time, and overtime, Epstein applies the principles of law, economics, and institutional design to the beautiful game. The result is a lively conversation about whether smarter rules could make soccer fairer, faster, and even more exciting.

Charles C. W. Cooke and Richard Epstein break down the Supreme Court’s Roundup v. Monsanto decision, arguing that the case was widely miscast as a simple fight between big business and cancer victims. Epstein explains why the real issue was federal preemption under FIFRA, the limits of state-law warning-label lawsuits, and the danger of letting juries override regulatory judgments on complex scientific questions. Along the way, he surveys the evolution of product liability law, the risks of over-litigation, and why different products—from pesticides to vaccines—may require very different legal treatment.

Richard Epstein takes on the growing obsession with billionaires, wealth taxes, and economic “justice,” arguing that making the rich poorer will not make the poor richer. Using Elon Musk’s hypothetical trillionaire status as a jumping-off point, Epstein explains why great fortunes are usually tied up in productive enterprises, not bank vaults, and why efforts to confiscate or redistribute them often destroy wealth, drive capital out of high-tax states, and leave everyone worse off. From California’s tax experiments to New York estate taxes to the politics of envy, Epstein makes the case that prosperity—not punishment—is the better path to helping the poor.

This week, Richard Epstein weighs in on war, deterrence, and the limits of modern military strategy. Drawing lessons from World War II, Vietnam, Gaza, and the current conflict with Iran, Epstein argues that wars are either fought to win or not fought at all. He contends that America’s fear of escalation, reliance on limited objectives, and preference for negotiated settlements have produced strategic drift rather than decisive victory. Professor Epstein also delivers a sharp critique of Donald Trump’s handling of Iran, defends the logic of unconditional surrender, and explains why he believes half-measures can be more dangerous—and more costly—than total commitment.

Richard Epstein analyzes the Trump administration’s controversial $1.776 billion settlement fund, arguing that it represents a profound breach of constitutional norms, public trust, and basic principles of good government. From standing doctrine and congressional power to taxation, impeachment, and the limits of executive authority, Epstein explains why he believes the scheme is legally dubious, politically explosive, and one of the most troubling examples of presidential overreach in modern American history.

Charles C. W. Cooke and Richard Epstein break down the Supreme Court’s latest Voting Rights Act decision, examining how the ruling in Louisiana v. Callais narrows the use of race in redistricting and marks a turning point in election law. Epstein argues that the Court has finally begun to rein in what he sees as decades of overreach, tracing the evolution of voting rights jurisprudence from the Civil Rights era to today and questioning whether majority-minority districts have outlived their original purpose. The conversation explores the legal foundations of racial gerrymandering, the unintended political consequences of engineered districts, and the broader implications for polarization, representation, and the future of redistricting in the United States.