AEI This Week

AEI's weekly digest of top commentary and scholarship on the issues that matter most

ACHIEVING LESS THAN IT SEEMS

Trump's First Year

January 17, 2026

President Trump’s supporters and critics have both treated the story of his second term's first year as one of transformative action. But how much has he actually accomplished? In a new interview with The New York Times’ Ezra Klein, Social, Cultural, and Constitutional Studies Director Yuval Levin assesses Trump’s presidency so far—and explains why his approach to governance is not as effective as it seems.

The Trump administration has dramatically changed US immigration policy by stepping up border enforcement, pursuing mass deportations of illegal aliens, and restricting legal immigration programs. In a new report, Stan Veuger and coauthors estimate that these policies drove immigration in 2025 to zero or negative levels—with negative consequences for the American economy.

Last week, President Trump called for a $1.5 trillion defense budget for fiscal year 2027. In a new working paper, Elaine McCusker and John G. Ferrari lay out how Congress and the military could use this $600 billion increase to develop a military posture capable of handling a protracted multi-theater war.

The United States will formally withdraw from the World Health Organization on January 22. Brett D. Schaefer and Roger Bate explain how the US can use this withdrawal to pursue much-needed improvements to transparency and accountability in global health governance.

This week, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell accused the administration of threatening to criminally prosecute him to induce the central bank to lower interest rates. Desmond Lachman highlights the serious economic risks of this unprecedented threat to independent monetary policy.

General Law Revivalism and the Problem of 1938

From the nation’s founding until 1938, federal courts routinely used a body of non-statutory general law to resolve a wide range of legal issues. The Supreme Court repudiated this practice in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, declaring that “there is no federal general common law” and requiring courts to follow only federal or state law. In a new draft paper, Jack Goldsmith and Curtis Bradley grapple with the complicated legacy of this decision—which refounded much of contemporary federal court doctrine on non-originalist grounds. Unlike with other non-originalist precedents, the current Supreme Court has largely continued to embrace Erie—despite some scholars’ calls to revive federal general law. Goldsmith and Bradley explain why this revivalism is unworkable but highlight the fundamental dilemma this leaves originalists with as they are forced to compromise their commitments to live with Erie’s legacy.