It’s been a difficult week, especially here in Minnesota.

It seems like ages ago by now, but on Monday Governor Walz made a surprise announcement that he would not be running for re-election this fall. This comes in the wake of continuing concerns about fraud in the administration of COVID-era Minnesota state programs, concerns that were recently inflamed by MAGA wing “journalists”. It seems likely that Senator Klobuchar will run in place of Walz, which would soon create a second Senate opening here (with Tina Smith already having announced her retirement).

Jonathan Cohn had a balanced article about the Minnesota fraud scandal in the Bulwark this week, and made some important points about the broader context of the scandal:

“The assistance programs of Western and Northern Europe tend to be universal, meaning they offer help to everybody, while the programs in the United States tend to be targeted, meaning they serve narrow, carefully defined sectors of the population. That creates incentives to game the eligibility criteria. Another difference is that the European governments are more likely to provide housing or deliver services like childcare directly. The United States, by contrast, outsources more of that work to the private sector, which means there are more opportunities for organizations and businesses to raid the public treasury.

This system didn’t develop by accident. It’s the result, in part, of a decades-long campaign by conservatives to limit or shrink the size of government, and to privatize public services whenever possible. And while there are plenty of intellectually defensible arguments for this approach—like a philosophical preference for lower spending and taxes or belief the private sector will be more efficient and innovative—it does require more aggressive oversight.3

“As long as you don’t have government directly provide those services, then you either have to invest more in auditing and monitoring these service provisions—or you have to be willing to deal with some failures and some scandals that come up every now and again,” Don Moynihan, a public policy professor at the University of Michigan and expert on how government actually works, told me.

The American system works best when there are safeguards in place to prevent fraud and abuse. In case you haven’t noticed, the Trump administration has adopted precisely the opposite approach since taking office—cutting personnel who guard against fraud rather than adding them, and weakening internal safeguards rather than strengthening them.

“Many of the cuts the Trump administration has made have been to reduce parts of the government that take on fraud,” Moynihan said.”

But the real news of the week here in Minnesota occurred on Wednesday, in Minneapolis, only a few blocks away from where George Floyd was killed a few years ago. In an incident witnessed by dozens and caught on cellphone videos, both by bystanders and by the assailant himself, an ICE agent (Jonathan Ross) killed a 37-year-old white female US citizen (Renee Good), shooting into her car at close range as she was attempting to drive away.

As with so many stories today, the narrative of this incident varies dramatically depending on which side of the political spectrum you inhabit. To hear DHS Secretary Noem and Vice President Vance tell it, Good was a “domestic terrorist” who was impeding a law enforcement operation and then attempted to flee, placing the ICE agent’s life in danger with her car and prompting him to fire in self-defense. Forensic video analysis performed by the NYTimes and other organizations paints a very different story, suggesting that the agent (who apparently had been run over by a car several months ago in a different operation) was not in any danger. Good’s motivations are also murky, as she appears to have been coming home from dropping her 6-year-old son off at school, rather than “engaging in domestic terrorism”. As such, many in Minnesota want to see Ross charged with murder, while the Trump administration characteristically remains unrepentant. Tensions are high here.

Speaker Johnson’s grip on his caucus appears to be continuing to slip, as this week 17 House Republicans crossed to floor to help pass a bill that would belatedly extend the Biden-era expanded premium subsidies for ACA individual medical insurance plans for an additional three years. The bill is not seen as having a chance to pass the Senate. Also, on Friday SCOTUS returned from its winter break and released one opinion, but it was not the eagerly anticipated opinion in the IEEPA tariffs case.

Speaking of tariffs, a working paper from two academics got some media attention this week. They argue that, due to various exemptions, the effective tariff rates observed in late 2025 are roughly half of the stated tariff rates, which helps explain why the higher tariff regime’s impact on the general economy has been muted so far. They also assert that virtually all of the higher tariffs are being borne by the U.S. rather than by exporters (via price reductions). Dan Drezner, reacting to the researchers’ findings:

“In a lot of ways, Trump’s trade policy is a synecdoche of the Trump administration’s overall policy shifts. There are horrible headlines, followed by policy that is only about 50 percent as horrible as the original pronouncement. Then Trump supporters exult in the fact that predictions of doom turned out to be false. Of course, the effect is like praising a doctor because he only injected half as much arsenic as was previously thought into a patient.”

Trump made three statements this week that I can hardly believe were uttered by a Republican President. First, he said that the U.S. should place limitations on the ability of certain corporations to own certain property (barring large institutional investors from owning single-family homes). Second, he said that the U.S. should place limitations on the ability of certain corporations (namely, defense contractors) to return capital to investors (through buybacks or dividends) and to compensate their senior executives. Finally, he said that the U.S. should place limitations on the interest rates charged to consumes on certain unsecured loans (credit card balances). These policies sound like they came out of Senator Warren’s mouth. Trump also stated this week that he wants to see a 50% increase in federal defense spending. At least that sounds like a Republican President’s position, even if it’s a batshit crazy thing to propose.

Finally, the wonderful world of foreign policy. I don’t think we have much more clarity about the future of Venezuela than we did when I last posted, other than Trump is clearly hot-to-trot to get American hands on Venezuelan oil, which always felt like the most likely root cause of his intervention. Yesterday he convened a White House meeting of the leaders of the U.S. oil industry, attempting to browbeat them into investing $100 billion in Venezuela, a country that on multiple previous occasions has expropriated American oil investments. So far they don’t seem to be biting.

And then there’s Greenland, about which the rhetoric keeps increasing. Yesterday Trump said, in reference to conversations he’s had with Danish officials, that “I would like to make a deal the easy way, but if we don’t do it the easy way we’re going to do it the hard way.” Something I just learned is that in 1916, when Denmark ceded the Danish Virgin Islands to the U.S., the U.S. Secretary of State made a formal declaration that “the Government of the United States of America will not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland.” In light of Venezuela and Greenland, tensions are once again rising in Canada about the possibility of threats, whether economic or military, from the southern neighbor.