Today, Matt Pottinger writes about the decision Trump must make on whether to exit his war with Iran quickly or stick it out at least a few more weeks. Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer explore the origin of the Equal Time Rule and how it is being applied to television appearances by politicians this year. And Amit Seru writes of the systemic risk posed by incomplete and fractured regulatory supervision of private credit portfolios.
Iran
Writing in The Free Press, Distinguished Visiting Fellow Matt Pottinger writes that even though President Donald Trump is seemingly expressing a desire for a quick end to his war against Iran, his better instincts will likely see him continue the fight for a longer period. Citing his own time in the White House during the first Trump administration, Pottinger argues Trump views the Iranian regime differently than other habitual American foes. He says Trump genuinely believes the Islamic Republic is made up of evildoers and will have a hard time tolerating them remaining in power after this war ends. Pottinger says more fighting “has a higher chance of preventing the regime from repeating its congenital cycle of bad-faith negotiations, pursuit of nuclear weapons, and proxy warfare all over again.” Read more here. [Subscription required.]
The FCC
On the latest episode of Free Speech Unmuted, hosts Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer are joined by Duke Law professor Stuart Benjamin to discuss the constitutional backstory behind the federal broadcasting Equal Time Rule and why broadcast media has long been treated differently from newspapers, cable, and the internet. From the 1969 Supreme Court ruling in Red Lion to the collapse of the Fairness Doctrine and beyond, the panel explains how we ended up with a broadcast-only regulatory regime—and why that consensus may now be unraveling. They also dig into the latest controversy involving political candidates appearing on shows like The View and late-night television, the FCC’s renewed scrutiny, and what it all could mean for the future of media regulation. Would today’s Supreme Court uphold broadcast exceptionalism? Or is this doctrine headed the way of the eight-track tape? Watch or listen to the episode here.
The Economy
Recent turmoil involving private credit lenders points to potential problems. Investors face uncertainty over how much such portfolios, which lie outside the supervision and protection of the traditional banking system, are worth, warns Hoover Senior Fellow Amit Seru. Nor is it clear how liquid these funds are, he writes. There are advantages to the private-lending market, but “the risks do not disappear,” Seru writes. “They shift to different balance sheets.” The root of the problem is fragmented regulation: no single federal or state authority has oversight over private credit. This means that trouble might not be seen coming, and its effects might expand beyond the funds themselves. Fed chair nominee Kevin Warsh, if confirmed, may be confronted with the problem of containing financial shocks arising from this blind spot, Seru writes. Read more here.
In this week’s Grumpy Economist Weekly Rant, Senior Fellow John Cochrane asks a simple question: Can a democracy lend money to its citizens and still expect repayment? Student loans were once largely private—banks financed education for students expected to earn more and repay their debt. But over time the federal government became the dominant lender, transforming the scale and incentives of the entire system. Cochrane explains how cheap federal borrowing expanded credit, sending student loans sharply higher while tuition climbed alongside it. As repayment rules weakened and forgiveness programs expanded, a system once expected to generate returns for taxpayers evolved into one producing hundreds of billions of dollars in federal losses. Watch his rant here.
Emerging Technology
The Hoover Institution’s Bio-Strategies and Leadership (BSL) initiative convened a discussion on January 29, 2026, with founders and CEOs working at the intersection of biotechnology, defense, and artificial intelligence. The conversation focused on how private-sector innovation can help prevent and respond to biological threats now and in the future. Titled “Biosecurity Innovation: Advancing the Public Good Through Private Leadership.” the lunch brought together nearly 70 participants, both in person and online. The discussion centered on a shared recognition that securing biology is possible but that doing so often hinges less on scientific advancements and more on ownership, incentives, and deployment at scale. Read more here.
Related Commentary