In the world of entrepreneurship and startup ecosystems, where disruption, innovation, and venture capital reign supreme, keeping an eye on public policy isn’t just smart — it’s essential. Government actions shape the macroeconomic environment, influence capital flows, and define the rules of the game for the next generation of innovators. With a new administration in Washington, there’s much to consider, especially from the perspective of independent and classically liberal thinkers who often dominate the entrepreneurial space.
Having spent a week in Washington D.C. during the inauguration, I was struck by a contrast in experiences. On one hand, met immediately by the terrible cold, endless barricades, and uncertain and changing plans, I sensed a metaphor upon my start, that working with Washington isn’t merely bureaucratic, this is the way things are – cold and difficult. As the days turned to the inauguration, the streets of the city felt dystopian, as though the zombies of the apocalypse were just around another corner, while emergency vehicle sirens in the distance echoed that we had a crisis at hand. On the other hand, while the divide in the United States seems ever present online, with the vitriol of the extremes making it seem like we have to hate one another or we ourselves are hated, this week in Washington was not so. Revelers left and right seemed to find consensus that we’re indeed due for change and that change was evident in my positive and optimistic meetings on the Hill, the beautiful experience of the inauguration, an incredible Texas Gala, and guests from around the world telling me they want to get to work.
What I sensed in that contrast is that we’re on the precipice of disruption, a word which to many, means cause for concern, but with which in my startup circles, bodes of improvement, solutions, investment opportunity, and the enthusiasm that’s palpable when we can work to make a difference.
Whether you cheer or jeer at the mention of Donald Trump’s name, hopefully you’re here because you seek the implications of policy more than the attention-hustle of praising or attacking the decisions such as they are. Entrepreneurs are often politically independent at their core; an alignment that stems from a shared belief in the power of individual action, market freedom, and a healthy skepticism of government overreach. To get to work, let’s dive into how the first few days of Trump’s 2025 presidency are shaping the landscape.
Tax Policy and Economic Growth
The Trump administration is pushing to extend or expand the TCJA (the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act), which sunsets in 2025. Lower taxes generally align with independent ideals, as they reduce government intervention in personal and corporate finances and promote economic freedom. For entrepreneurs, the benefits include capital for reinvestment, faster scaling, and greater flexibility.
However, the Congressional Budget Office projects a staggering $5.8 trillion increase in deficits over the next decade if these tax cuts are extended. While supply-side economics suggests that tax reductions can stimulate growth and offset deficits, the historical record is mixed. The Reagan-era tax cuts, for example, spurred growth but also preceded rising debt levels. Entrepreneurs should keep an eye on how these deficits could impact interest rates and inflation, potentially tightening venture capital availability.
While immediate benefits may include increased hiring and innovation, long-term risks tied to fiscal irresponsibility cannot be ignored. History teaches us that unchecked deficits can erode economic stability, raising questions about the sustainability of a growth-at-all-costs approach. Of course, we have other policy and financial changes that are already impacting hiring and innovation, we’ll get to that further in our brief.
Tariffs and Trade Policy
The administration’s plan to impose a 60% tariff on Chinese goods and a 10% baseline on other imports is a double-edged sword. On one hand, protecting domestic industries aligns with economic independence and national security goals. On the other, tariffs inherently conflict with free-market principles by distorting price signals and increasing costs for consumers.
Research from the Peterson Institute found that Trump’s 2018-2019 tariffs on Chinese imports cost U.S. households an average of $460 annually. Retaliatory measures by trade partners could exacerbate supply chain disruptions, particularly in sectors like electronics, manufacturing, and agriculture.
What this steers attention toward though, evident to some in the tongue-in-cheek humor about Canada joining the United States, is a look at markets closer to home.
Revisiting the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) presents both opportunities and risks. Securing better terms for U.S. businesses might enhance competitiveness and simple considerations such as proximity and time zones, makes working with U.S. neighbors easier than overseas, but renegotiation periods typically bring uncertainty. For industries like automotive manufacturing, which rely heavily on integrated North American supply chains, this uncertainty could pose operational challenges. Then again, strengthening North American countries eases other challenges such as immigration and national security.
Immigration and Labor Market
Trump’s executive order to challenge birthright citizenship and restrict immigration flows is framed as a means to reduce government spending on entitlements. This resonates with some liberal arguments against the welfare state. Yet, from an economic perspective, these policies could backfire. Industries such as tech, agriculture, and hospitality depend on immigrant labor, and tighter restrictions could lead to higher wages, labor shortages, and slower economic growth.
A 2020 report from the National Bureau of Economic Research noted that immigrants have historically driven a disproportionate share of U.S. innovation, particularly in STEM. We’re seeing a healthy social media debate about this and it warrants much closer attention because there are pros and cons to whichever direction the country proceeds; restricting immigration could hamper the talent pipeline that startups and tech giants rely upon for competitiveness. I might argue though that if we address affordability and education, both in dire need of deregulation (or at least massive overhaul), Americans are more than ready to fill the demands for labor in innovation.
Regulation and Deregulation
The administration’s moves to roll back Biden-era environmental regulations align with independent principles of reducing government overreach but society is only ready for that when public pressure, social exposure, and competitive markets enable the economy to self-correct and remove companies causing harm. Lowering compliance costs can stimulate economic activity, particularly in traditional industries like energy and manufacturing. However, independent theory also emphasizes property rights, and that environmental degradation often infringes upon these if we’re not enabled to choose otherwise. Long-term consequences, such as pollution or climate-related risks, could impose costs on businesses and individuals alike.
Trump’s commitment to “one in, two out” regulation reductions, similar to what we’ve seen in Argentina, paired with the Supreme Court’s curtailment of the Chevron doctrine, signals a return to legislative accountability. Entrepreneurs often benefit from such simplifications, as regulatory uncertainty and compliance burdens are major barriers to entry for would-be founders while adding to the cost of doing business for everyone.
Trump’s policy to unwind electric vehicle (EV) mandates supports domestic manufacturing but may slow the broader transition to green technology. Applaud market-driven innovation and yet, still consider how tariffs on foreign vehicles distort competition.
We’re also seeing reinforced support for drone technology and AI infrastructure, with the administration aiming to streamline integration and commercialization of both. While this aligns with our ideals of fostering innovation, privacy concerns loom large and hopefully we’ll see diligence on prohibiting prying eyes from looking where they shouldn’t be allowed. Without clear boundaries, advancements in surveillance technology could undermine individual freedoms.
Why we must have this pragmatic view of policy
Entrepreneurs and political independents — or those with classically liberal (libertarian) views — share a foundational ethos rooted in personal responsibility, self-determination, and skepticism of centralized authority. Both groups value individual initiative over collective control, seeing innovation, progress, and prosperity as the natural outcomes of free-market dynamics and unencumbered decision-making. Entrepreneurs, like libertarians, thrive on the belief that markets, not governments, are best equipped to allocate resources efficiently. In a study published in The Journal of Business Venturing, researchers found that entrepreneurs are disproportionately inclined toward individualistic and self-reliant attitudes, as these traits are essential for managing risk, overcoming barriers, and capitalizing on opportunities in uncertain environments.
Entrepreneurial success also depends on the freedom to challenge established norms, much like the political independence prized by libertarians. Thought leaders like Milton Friedman have long emphasized that economic freedom is a prerequisite for innovation: “The great advances of civilization…have never come from centralized government.” Entrepreneurs understand that bureaucracy and overregulation stifle creativity by imposing unnecessary costs and barriers, aligning their economic worldview with libertarian calls for limited government. This shared belief in “permissionless innovation,” a concept championed by libertarian thinkers like Adam Thierer, underscores the entrepreneurial mindset: the idea that breakthroughs emerge not from prior approval but from experimentation in open, competitive markets. In essence, both entrepreneurs and libertarians view freedom—not control—as the engine of progress and prosperity.
What’s To Come in Innovation
Early moves from Trump’s administration signal a more favorable regulatory stance toward cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. Reversing restrictions from prior administrations could foster innovation and financial sovereignty. However, the absence of a comprehensive regulatory framework risks market manipulation and consumer harm, as highlighted by the 2022 Terra-Luna collapse.
An emphasis on blockchain technology for enhancing government operations or national security could be seen as a positive move, promoting efficiency and transparency; reinforcing “decentralization” as such, and the implications of being decentralized in free speech, protecting rights, and enabling independence, is, I’d argue, the more meaningful choice of words and intent than “blockchain.”
The $500 billion Stargate initiative aims to develop cutting-edge AI infrastructure, including data centers and computing capabilities. While such projects can boost innovation, we might also be wary of government-led tech development, which could stifle private sector ingenuity while raising the question of why such investment is needed by the public sector (to what end?). Collaboration with private industry is essential to ensure market-driven outcomes.
Posts on X highlight concerns about Stargate turning into a surveillance tool, which raises significant privacy issues. The lack of stringent privacy laws could lead to government or corporate overreach, challenging the principles of individual liberty and privacy.
The expansion of data centers for AI and other technologies under Stargate will likely increase energy demands. Trump’s push for “energy dominance” through increased domestic production might align with economic growth but at the potential cost of environmental considerations, a point of contention for entrepreneurs who might advocate for market-based solutions to energy issues rather than government-led initiatives.
Bottom line, the investment in physical infrastructure like data centers could be viewed positively for economic growth, but there’s a risk of creating monopolistic environments if not competitively structured, which goes against free, entrepreneur, and innovation market principles.
Which is why, frankly, the establishment of Stargate in Abilene, Texas, leaves at least this economist with optimism. Reflecting the continued move of innovation from Silicon Valley to Texas, the embrace of the independent values of Texans, and the alignment of the future in Stargate, with what is already the capital of America’s space, quantum, energy, and media future, we might be learning from Texas to make America great again.
Trump’s continued support for the Space Force and possibly expanding its role could be seen as both a move towards national security and an endorsement of space exploration. The privatization of space ventures is key, and any government involvement should aim to spur private innovation rather than control it; we might be seeing this positively in the inspiration to plant a flag on Mars; promoting free enterprise in what could be considered the next frontier for economic activity.
There’s an opportunity here for the administration to push for less restrictive regulations on space activities, potentially leading to an explosion of innovation and economic opportunities in the sector, but this must be balanced with the need to manage space debris, property rights in space, and international cooperation.
Note from the inauguration: Tim Cook, Elon Musk, Sundar Pichai, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos, standing behind the next 4 years; welcoming Trump 2.0 as the U.S. pivots from Biden’s heavy-handed tech policy. For innovators and entrepreneurs, this could be the reset button we desperately needed.
Biden’s administration treated business growth like a crime. Calling policymakers a “whole-of-government strike force,” the past few years of corporate tax and regulatory uncertainty were an all-out assault on success. Punishing startup success stories wasn’t just shortsighted — it tanked economic growth.
The American people noticed. The Rejection of Bidenomics wasn’t subtle. What’s next? Trump has outlined a tech-forward plan:
- Undo Biden’s red tape mess
- Celebrate American ingenuity
- Lead in innovation before China eats our lunch.
Dismantling the Administrative State:
Trump’s “one in, two out” regulation rollback worked wonders in his first term. Combine that with SCOTUS’s recent death blow to the Chevron doctrine, and we’re staring at a big win for accountability. Congress makes laws—not unelected bureaucrats.
This matters because the Biden administration loved empowering the so-called “Fourth Branch” of government. Trump’s approach is poised to bring balance back to policymaking. Want innovation? Get rid of the nonsense. Entrepreneurs need a launchpad, not hurdles.
Celebrating Success vs. Controlling It:
Biden embraced control—think speech restrictions, weaponized bureaucracies, and punishing companies for daring to thrive. Walter Russell Mead nailed it: America’s greatness is in its “turbulent, nearly ungovernable society.” Creativity thrives in chaos, not control.
Kamala Harris doubled down on Biden’s mistakes, admitting she wouldn’t change a thing. Americans aren’t stupid; they know that micromanaging the private sector hurts everyone. Trump’s open embrace of U.S. innovation offers a much-needed course correction.
Permissionless Innovation:
The phrase itself sounds like a rallying cry for creators. Trump’s AI policies championed this in 2019, balancing innovation and protection without drowning businesses in red tape. Compare that to Biden’s 2023 “AI Red Tape Wishlist.” Guess which one stifles startups?
Biden’s AI executive order was a bureaucratic disaster, layering complexity onto small businesses already struggling to innovate. Unsurprisingly, GOP leaders slammed it as “dangerous.” The pivot back to simplicity could reignite America’s tech leadership against rivals like China.
Hope is on the horizon for U.S. creators. Trump’s pro-innovation stance, coupled with a Supreme Court backing deregulation, gives entrepreneurs the chance to build, baby, build. The question is: will America grab this second chance to lead in global tech?
What Might We Appreciate Globally?
Donald Trump’s tendency to negotiate by starting with extreme proposals, such as the imposition of up to 60% tariffs on Chinese goods, is consistent with his broader strategy: force stakeholders to the table by making the status quo untenable. For most, the initial discomfort of these policies might give way to appreciating the long-term strategy — if it leads to freer trade and reduced reliance on distortive practices like subsidies or intellectual property theft. The downside is clear: heightened trade tensions could disrupt global supply chains, accelerating China’s efforts toward self-sufficiency and reducing interdependence in the global tech ecosystem.
That said, forcing China to confront its own reliance on the U.S. market could encourage more balanced and fair trade practices in the long term. Trump’s approach, transactional and aggressive as it seems, could also push the U.S. to reorient its investments closer to home. Strengthening North America as an economic bloc—by improving relationships with Mexico and Canada through renegotiations of agreements like the USMCA—could make the region less dependent on global volatility while fostering economic integration.
Recalibrating Engagement with Africa
Trump’s pivot toward strategic partnerships in Africa, particularly those focused on critical minerals, shifts away from traditional aid and towards relationships built on mutual economic benefit. While this transactional approach may reduce direct development assistance, it creates opportunities for African nations to leverage their resources for sustainable economic growth. The renewal (or potential adjustment) of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) could redefine U.S.-Africa trade dynamics, perhaps introducing conditions that incentivize stronger governance or economic reform.
Still, the reduction of U.S. involvement in African conflicts, unless tied directly to national interests, might leave a power vacuum. China and Russia are likely to fill these gaps, but if U.S. partnerships prioritize free-market principles and economic liberalization, the long-term outcomes for African nations could outweigh the short-term challenges.
Europe: Encouraging Self-Reliance
Trump’s skepticism of NATO and demands for greater European defense spending may seem destabilizing at first, but they align with independents’ ideals of self-reliance. By pushing European allies to take greater responsibility for their defense, the U.S. reduces its own financial and military burdens while encouraging a more balanced global power dynamic. The threat of tariffs on European goods, though initially disruptive, could encourage Europe to diversify trade partnerships and reduce overreliance on the U.S., potentially fostering innovation and resilience within its economies.
Environmental and Trade Policies
The rollback of environmental regulations, often criticized for isolating the U.S. from global climate efforts, reflects a prioritization of domestic economic growth over multilateral commitments. We might see this as a recalibration of the U.S. role, emphasizing market-driven environmental solutions over government mandates. If successful, it could showcase the power of innovation and competition in addressing environmental challenges, though skepticism about long-term consequences remains valid.
Similarly, threats to renegotiate agreements like the USMCA introduce uncertainty for industries reliant on integrated North American supply chains, particularly automotive manufacturing. Yet these disruptions could encourage Mexico and Canada to diversify their economies, reducing dependency on the U.S. while promoting regional strength. Border security initiatives, while politically divisive, might also enhance the economic stability of the region by addressing challenges tied to immigration and cross-border labor dynamics.
The Global Economic Landscape
Trump’s policies, viewed through our lens here, offer a paradox: they aim to reduce U.S. dependence on global systems while forcing other nations to reconsider their reliance on the U.S. This “America First” strategy could lead to a more fragmented global trade system, with nations shifting toward regional trade blocs or bilateral agreements. While this might seem counterproductive to the principles of free trade, the ultimate goal could be a world where countries negotiate from positions of greater equity and sovereignty, fostering more balanced and competitive markets.
For entrepreneurs, the lessons are twofold. First, navigating these disruptions requires flexibility and a long-term view, recognizing that short-term instability might pave the way for freer markets. Second, these policies challenge the entrepreneurial community to innovate solutions that thrive in an increasingly multipolar economic environment. The tension between protectionism and free-market integration remains, but the opportunity lies in how the global community responds to these provocations. As always, the market—not politics—will ultimately determine the winners and losers.
From Washington to What’s Next
Trump’s first week in office has already set the stage for a transformative period in U.S. policy, one that is deeply consequential for entrepreneurs, innovators, and market-driven thinkers. By extending tax cuts, aggressively pursuing trade renegotiations, rolling back regulations, and reshaping global engagement, the administration is signaling a return to policies aimed at economic independence and private-sector empowerment. Yet, these actions are a double-edged sword. While deregulation and lower taxes bolster the entrepreneurial spirit and innovation, tariffs, immigration restrictions, and ballooning deficits introduce significant uncertainties that could stifle long-term growth and stability.
For entrepreneurs, who often align with politically independent or classically liberal principles, the implications of these policies are nuanced. Policies that favor individual initiative and reduce bureaucratic barriers, such as deregulation and a more favorable cryptocurrency framework, present opportunities for innovation and reinvestment. However, concerns about protectionism, global trade fragmentation, and government overreach into technology development remain prominent. Entrepreneurs must weigh the potential for short-term gains against the broader risks of market distortion and fiscal irresponsibility.
The administration’s emphasis on domestic economic strength—manifested in initiatives like the $500 billion Stargate AI infrastructure project, the push for “energy dominance,” and the renegotiation of agreements such as the USMCA—presents a path forward that is ambitious but fraught with challenges. While these initiatives could drive growth and strengthen the U.S.’s leadership in critical industries, they also raise questions about sustainability, competition, and individual liberties. The balance between fostering market-driven innovation and addressing externalities, such as environmental impacts and privacy concerns, will determine the success of these policies.
Disruption as Opportunity
Entrepreneurs and policymakers alike must view this era as one of profound disruption—a term that, in the entrepreneurial lexicon, signals opportunity as much as challenge. Trump’s policies are reshaping the landscape in ways that will test the resilience and adaptability of the entrepreneurial community, pushing it to innovate solutions for an evolving global order. The emphasis on decentralization, deregulation, and market freedom aligns with the ethos of entrepreneurial independence, yet these ideals will only thrive if paired with accountability and strategic foresight.
This moment demands not just attention but action from those who seek to influence or benefit from these shifts. As the global economy becomes increasingly multipolar and self-reliance is prioritized over integration, the entrepreneurial community must champion policies that promote equitable and competitive markets while mitigating the unintended consequences of disruption. The stakes are high, but so are the possibilities. The question is not whether these policies will create change but how we will rise to meet it.
Well sir!! Hello and #Boundaries!
The frozen porta potties probably mean than germs froze too, so a win is a win!
May I share here my ponderings on my way to a startup event? (: & Thanks for sharing, Mr. Paul! We are merely connected via content and that’s a win.
Ruby Pittman always welcome your ponderings!!
Paul O’Brien thank you!!
Here ya go:
I personally/independently (with exception for my Grandmother Mays covering my entry fee) on my way to a Startup Coil event and it’s warm in LA… a nice combo that changes constantly huh!
Whilst I’m not trying to connect this with how germs are; I’m not a virologist or anything… I can’t get politi-pilled right now on my way to the event! I will, however, share this read however with ANYONE that tries to mention politics though #VivaIndependence!
This is an excellent primer on changes with the incoming administration Paul O’Brien – thanks for the perspective and braving the cold!
Check it out Erin Jacobs Natasha Monks Kim Wiltshire
Thanks for that insider perspective on what the rest of us watched from afar. I won’t spin a long comment about all that I think this presidential transition represents or the work that needs to be done, but I would like to call out two failures of communication in my quick read of this journal record. The first thing that I would like to call out is that lumping all immigration into one large bucket is not helpful or accurate. First of all, the difference between legal immigration quotas and “high-value” high tech developers and contributors coming into the United States has not changed and will not change under Donald Trump (unless it goes up). Confounding what is happening on our borders with the kind of talent that is helpful to grow innovation and change in fields like A.I., is neither helpful or accurate. Secondly, I believe there are millions who have entered our country via a swimming test or rock climbing test at the southern border who are not contributing members to our nation–not even in the service industry where we constantly read and hear the elite class call out as their place in our society. I don’t think we would be having the problems or massive financial drain on our welfare systems if these people were being integrated into our nation–people who are here illegally, but still getting social service well beyond that of citizens and our own homeless.
My second area of concern that I think has to be addressed aggressively and is not getting the traction that is needed in congress is that we are arguably on the verge of financial collapse as a nation with a $36T nation debt that is growing faster than the illegal immigration and no one in congress is will to face the fact that we have a Gov that is between 35-50 times the size of one of the nation’s largest corporations (Exxon Mobile Corp) and we live in more of a Banana Republic today that gives millions and even billions of dollars to bureaucrats to spend recklessly with virtually no accountability. NGO’s have become the newest vehicle for Gov corruption and congress lives by the lie that there is very little in our budget that can be reduced or changed. This lie, from both sides of the aisle, is the lie of “non-discretionary spending”. This lie has been used for decades and we have not had even a balanced budget since Bill Clinton. Congress continues to hide behind this lie and we are standing on the edge of this national collapse of our financial system.
If we are unable to get these two issues addressed quickly and at a level that exceeds any prior administration’s efforts to change our nation, everything else is merely academic and it really won’t matter. These are not original thoughts or ideas. Far smarter people that me have been ringing the alarm of what happens next to a nation that lives on borrowed money and refuses to do in the business of the nation what every entrepreneur that you know has to do every day in their businesses and their homes. Live within their means. We have not tried to live within our means for a very long time and now the price to get back to zero may be a fool’s dream.
Tim, you made my day with your reference to writing a comment long, because I’m constantly criticized for writing too much (or rather, encouraged that my audience would be bigger, and I could earn more advertising revenue, if I broke my articles up into smaller chunks). Alas, I don’t write for people’s preferences; I write for me and if people like it, wonderful! I welcome the long comments so we can get our points across.
That said, in the back of my mind was this nag that I was already writing too much. As a result, I didn’t get into the details of the two points you make.
As to immigration, we agree 100%. We can, should, and do, welcome more people into the United States than any other country – legally, meaningfully, and beneficially. That should never stop. We need to fix how it’s being managed.
As to the size of government or our debt, I am of a simpler mind: Our government should be a fraction of the size it is now. I don’t care about a balanced budget (that just means they will maintain the exceptional size while trying to figure out how to bring it more revenue). Bottom line: it is full of bloat, waste, and inefficiency. We spend trillions of dollars for an organization about as effective as a car dealership.
While a discussion rages that we need much of what the government does, I’m in the camp of killing it off and starting over. Granted, obviously we can’t really do that, but we certainly can have that culture and approach that leads with “end it” and then asks if whatever it did needs to be replaced in some way.
I agree and I agree that our government is full of bloat, waste, inefficiency and CORRUPTION. 20 years ago I believed that Gov corruption was the exception to the rule, but today I believe that the only advantage of a government that is 35 times the size of one of the most complex and robust companies on the planet (I reference Exxon Mobile only because of its size and complexity), with a Federal Government that is between 2.2M and 3M people, the sheer size alone means accountability is impossible, making the importance of your suggestion to get rid of most of WashDC vital to the survival of the nation as we know it. Waste and Corruption can only go on for so long before we find our nation back at where we started in 1776. That would be a very sad way to see our problems resolved. As a side note: My Instagram account highlights these issues daily, along with some other vital interests of our nation’s health, history and faith. @OldGuyNotStupid. Thank you for your comments and this post.
An interesting read even if u don’t agree with many of the conclusions/assertions. Definitely a lot to consider. Thanks for sharing.
Mark Brindley without discourse, we have nothing
Paul, completely agree.
The idea the govt was losing money after the tax cuts was just gaslighting by the left. If you look up the actual amount received it was a record high after the cuts. When taxes go down historically IRS revenue goes up.
Also, as a human rights advocate I’m curious how you define what human rights are, and where they come from.
Aaron Hermes inherent, inalienable rights that belong to every individual by virtue of their existence, manifest Independent of governments or societal structures. Primarily include: life, liberty, and property, with the understanding that individuals are free to act as they choose, provided they do not infringe on the same rights of others.
Paul O’Brien fair enough. Or to put it simply, the right to do as you please so long as you’re not harming another sentient being. Our human rights are too innumerable to list. Have you seen this doc which really breaks the issue down?
https://youtu.be/bP5sk5xp9WM?si=0X-fhbsLy6cquzzY
Checkout https://ground.news to see what the left/right/center is reporting for each story
Marlon Montgomery Ground News is an interesting approach, but I see nothing to indicate the quality or qualifications of the editors, journalists, or researchers in assembling these cited sources. What legitimate institutions cite the site, for example? Who are the content or classification experts that select the sources?
No Associated Press, UPI, or major newspapers like the Sunday Times (UK), or LA times, SF chronicle, Chicago tribune, etc. trying to compare such journalistic heavyweights to some of obscure blogs with no ascribed expertise is just silly hearsay.
For example, the Middle East coverage shows 3 sites: all Israeli, and not the Palestinian Daily Chronicle, PNN, or other like-sources to provide a balance.
Anyone can make a website or create a blog: that doesn’t make them an expert in any/every topic.
Bill Louden The list of 3 sources on that topic, as stated are those that provide the most coverage on that issue. If you look at the individual stories, there are typically a ton of sources for each story. Sometimes 100+ including majors. Users can also add/suggest a missing source.
Here’s a summary of the methodology for the ratings and factuality scores:
https://ground.news/rating-system
This is an incredibly thoughtful piece that acknowledges the deep disruption while daring to offer optimism.
All these projects claim the creation of ‘thousands of jobs’ but the reality is often not even hundreds created. I’d rather see them project a bottom up approach: how many engineers, rocket scientists, production add and quality personnel, construction, maintenance, administrative, and executive positions will be needed, What are the one year. 3year, 5 year forecasts?
How many ancillary jobs will be created or needed in the city? What infrastructure needs to be built?
Any other startup would be presenting these forecasts. Shouldn’t we expect the same from government?
Eric Grumling
Grand Valley Aviation
1d
Edited
RE: “support for drone technology”
The big push in the small drone universe these days is what’s called beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) operation. Under current rules (14 CFR part 107) a pilot must keep eyes on their aircraft at all times, either directly or indirectly with the use of human spotters. Binoculars or electronic means aren’t allowed (voice comms between spotters and pilot over radio are permitted). There is a waiver process that requires manually walking a request to the FAA office in DC. A handful of waivers have been granted to large corporations (Southern Company) and first responders in large cities.
For at least 5 years there’s been a proposed rule change (14 CFR part 108) for setting the rules for BVLOS flight. It’s slowly working through the system, mostly because the FAA has gone through five different directors since 2018, two of them “acting” directors who were just chair sitting because they didn’t have the congressional mandate to implement policy. The current director, Michael Whitaker, has only been in place since October 2023 and has stepped down as of Jan 20, despite being appointed with wide bipartisan support (98-0 vote).
If and when a new FAA administrator is appointed, the priority will be (well, probably should be) address the growing number of incidents around airports involving commercial and crewed aircraft. Mostly an issue with execution of the existing rules, but also one of recruiting air traffic controllers and continued modernization. Of course getting part 108 through can happen concurrently, but once the rules are in place there will be a lot of pushback from other agencies, local municipalities, general aviation communities (who might find themselves competing with drones for missions like cropdusting), and the public at large. It has to be right, but more importantly, it has to be promoted as a net positive. I don’t see that happening without a champion at the legislative or executive level.
The current waivers are showing the usefulness of stationing drones in areas such as power substations, high crime areas and for security perimeters. “Drone as first responder” has become the latest buzzword for selling hardware to police forces. By positioning drones in remote docks (I prefer the term nest, but that’s just my warped sense of humor), a pilot at the 911 dispatch center -or pretty much anywhere- can get eyes on a situation in minutes, relaying video to the squad car in route. Suspects have even surrendered to drones. Just like you can’t outrun Motorola, you can’t hide from Skydio. As waivers continue to be granted for limited use across delivery and other missions the real value of drones will be clear.
Much of my business plan ultimately depends on part 108. I was hoping things would have moved a lot faster than they have. I’m hopeful that someone in the new administration will get part 108 implemented but it’s obviously going to be a very low priority and likely not to get much positive press either. Picking battles is how DC works. If the waivers are good enough to show progress, that might be enough for the FAA to call it a success. But what might be is still a long way away.
And then there’s the whole thing about DJI and not having a US ecosystem that can effectively produce the equivalent products, but this is long enough!
Very thought provoking article with many posible turns and twists. Undoubtedly, it will be good to keep pulse on what may come but keep nimble startup mindset in charting new possibilities.
The differential tax rate for “made in America” products has the potential to have a giant impact on the tech sector in a way I’m unsure folks are really thinking about yet.
We make software, if that software is made in America then lower taxes?
This has the potential to be a huge boon for software engineering jobs in the USA.
Bret Piatt if I’m following you, and I’m not sure I am, the rate for products and services is set by the market, not underlying taxes.
That, lowering tax on American made, just means American companies will profit more, then won’t adjust prices. Likewise, foreign made (software) is often cheaper, so increasing tariffs won’t change the dynamics of our preference for or against it.
Again, if I’m following you.
The reason to reduce taxes (and regulation) doesn’t have to do with market-determined prices, it’s to spurn innovation.
When we have more government involvement, fewer people can afford to be involved themselves, as entrepreneurs, innovators, and competitors. Companies even have to pay employees more, slowing their ability to compete.
In many respects, Americans outsource overseas for this very reason – labor is less expensive, regulations are less onerous. Prices, costs, and salaries merely reflect that.
(Am I missing the mark on what you’re thinking?)
Paul O’Brien My understanding is the proposed, still to be implemented tax plan is 15% corporate tax for “Made in America” products and then a higher rate (unclear if this is 30% or maybe even more, I haven’t seen specifics on that side of the equation yet).
So if you’re building software, and you capitalize that software development, and you do that with developers in America, then you’ll pay 15% tax on that income going forward.
If you built software using developers around the rest of the world, then your ongoing sales are at a higher tax rate.
So, via this there’s a major incentive to develop large and profitable products with American developers.
This either let’s you sell at equal profitability with lower prices vs. non-American built system or it let’s you sell at equivalent price and make higher net income.
Bret Piatt On one hand I would love some kind of *bonus* for using almost entirely US based team members – we do have a Canadian contractor – however on the other hand I would not want to penalize those who use offshore talent … TBH political borders feel so arbitrary and outdated …
Marlon Montgomery smart concept… helps each consumer consider that indeed they are operating from a biased perspective…
The devil may be in the details of execution but even failure to execute simply leaves space for a better competitor
A very well thought out article. A refreshing perspective.
I don’t really accept the premise that you’re an unbiased independent. Not an attack at all, just kind of a weird claim made that carries too much weight for the legitimacy of the argument, in your framing of the piece.
John Higley go on, make your case that something I said is partisan. I don’t object to nor block disagreement at all but you have to explain yourself and not just make an empty assertion. Reuben, chime in. Very disappointed. Okay… Why?
It has been affirmed and shared by a lot of independent thinkers so if it’s so disappointing and illegitimate, I have to ask why you think so, or understand your inherent bias that all the agreement is wrong.
Take it away…
Paul O’Brien ahhh… Something stuck in my craw on this and… Okay, another “additionally”… I did not say that I disagreed, I rejected your premise. That’s not semantics, it’s substantive to the conversation and in general, these are not the same thing. Next you said, “fine, I have bias”. You framed your argument around being unbiased. That’s the whole rhetorical foundation of the piece. That’s the premise I’m rejecting. I guess we’re in agreement then?
Let’s talk about ad hominem… I never called you partisan and never made an assertion that you’re being partisan. Why ask me to tell you what you said was partisan, when I don’t think what you said was partisan? That makes no sense at all. It’s such a weird reframing of the conversation that I’m worried that it’s not made in good faith. To be exceptionally clear, I did not call you partisan, nor did I assert partisanship. You are tilting at windmills with that one.
Paul O’Brien yes, you were responding to a first off. It took some time to write a more thorough response. Regrettably, it’s not as thorough as I would prefer, but I have a dishwasher to fix and a Saturday to enjoy. As I’m sure you do. Well, hopefully not the dishwasher part. Anywho, I’ll check back. More than happy to chat
Paul O’Brien Okay, let’s talk about the ideal of bias you’ve used as a foundation for this piece. When dealing with bias, the goal is to recognize and control for it, not eliminate it. Eliminating personal bias is not possible. It is possible to write in an unbiased way, to control for bias, to check bias, to exclude bias, etc. control, not elimination, and you, are not unbiased. Especially not when it comes to this and that goes for pretty much, probably, every American. So, you kinda screwed yourself walking in claiming that you are unbiased, rather than assert that you would attempt to control for bias. What this tells the reader is that you are unaware of, or unwilling to admit your bias. That’s hubris.
To the piece itself. In the opening, you define yourself as an independent and not directly claim membership with the “classically liberal” perspective of entrepreneurs, but the tone absolutely shows deference. I love this phrase “classically liberal”, it’s such a joke of a euphemism for libertarian without the baggage, when it actually contains far more baggage considering the classically liberal positions in this country were the ones that opposed expansion of voting rights and protected the concept of people as property. You even equate “classically liberal” to “libertarian” later in the piece. Independent is a nebulous term for political position, that communicates more about how the person making the claim thinks of themselves and others than it tells the reader what they believe in. It’s a term that says, “unlike those party members, I’m a free thinker that goes with what makes sense, not what a party suggests”. That’s fine, but it’s arrogant. The reality is, pretty much everyone believes that about themselves whether they belong to a political party or not. It’s not a moniker that tells your audience anything about where you’re coming from, just how you view yourself and possibly others.
“Lower taxes generally align with independent ideals” – nope (regarding the context of this quote). This is a biased, subjective assertion. On one hand, the moniker you’re using is little more then a side step to avoid being pigeon holed. Additionally, your framing leaves out relevant context, e.g.: lower taxes for whom? If you poll “independents”, yes, your poll data shows that self described independents favor lower taxes, just like the majority of people. You will also find in polling among self described independents and the majority, that they favor higher taxes on the wealthy. By ignoring this and simplifying the tax bill, you are showing bias.
I’m going to try and enjoy my Saturday rather than litigate this all day. You wrote a lot and some of it is unbiased reporting with a dose of subjective and objective forecasting, that said, here are a few more…
You ameliorate your concern regarding the privacy concerns of Stargate by claiming that Texas is inherently better suited than California. That is an inherently biased statement clearly based on your alignments.
“Biden’s policy treated business growth like a crime” that sentence is both absurd and incredibly biased. Honestly, after this line is where the piece becomes unabashedly biased. Your characterizations are laughably biased. You have a subtitle called “celebrating success vs. controlling it”.
You’re more than welcome to your opinions and parts of this are certainly well reasoned and argued, but you hinged your argument / hung your hat on this being unbiased. That’s just not true. This is filled with bias and appears to largely be animated by bias.
John Higley okay, and secondly? Or evidence of your point? You’re still merely saying you disagree. Okay, why?
And fine, I have bias and it is partisan in some respects. You’re close to being ad hominem.
I didn’t say independent is non-partisan, I asked you to explain what I said that is partisan.
All policy issues have to take one side or the other to some extent. Independents, to most people I find, means that we agree with neither GOP or Dem, which is why I’m asking you what I said that is partisan (entirely one sided).
Paul O’Brien well first off, I have to push back on your characterization. Non-partisanship does not equate to unbiased or independent and I would not and did not claim that you’re a partisan, or that your bias stems from partisanship.
Far right authoritarian control doesn’t help innovation or freedom. It does the opposite. What’s stupefying to me is why the entire world – especially first world nations – appears to be leaning hard in that direction.
David Burrows please elaborate, explain how it actually is doing so as opposed to how the media and politicians are making it seem so. And yes, perhaps in some issues it is, but if we’re talking big picture, which it sounds like we are then what characterizes this hard and stupifying far right shift?
Paul O’Brien authoritative government is a wet blanket to creative energy. Innovation is about taking risks, breaking rules. Right wing policies stifle that energy. I think we forget how fragile initial ideas are at the very beginning. They need room and permission to take hold, network, pivot, and grow.
David Burrows ah maybe I misread you, so you’re agreeing with me or disagreeing?
Did you have the chance to attend the TechRoast show, Paul?
Alex Lin I did not. Most of my time was meetings. I actually went to work and it was just a nice coincidence.
Thanks for sharing. A couple of thoughts bouncing around in my mind:
-With Project Stargate- who really benefits? Seems like a lot to be excited about if you are Oracle or OpenAI, and yes a startup could leverage it, but one could also view it as more consolidation of power.
-Labor/tariffs- how will labor shortages and higher costs of goods impact startup innovation?
I’ve also started to see an uptick in critiques and questions around venture capital and what it’s evolved into.
Specially it seems that bootstrapping is becoming harder and harder. For that not to be true, Trump has to deliver on lowering the cost of living so people have more money to take their own risks.
VCs are laboring DC in ways they never had before. This in turn has consolidated access to capital to the major VC players, while securing federal funding for large players like Oracle and OpenAI that no startup can even come close to competing with.
Money is now flowing in ways that support those VC’s agendas, who are financially motivated to create the sense that you can’t start and scale a startup without them, just my 2 cents.
Very interested to see how this impacts how many startups we see and the types of innovations that result.
Austin Mace some of my perspective
Stargate… startup ecosystems emerge because of inspiration, opportunity, and culture, not tech or capital. You’re not wrong, Stargate investment itself won’t directly spark entrepreneurs but the fact that it’s there will.
Labor/tariffs… this characterizes it too narrowly. Look at what *might* happen with Colombia, and the ignorant social media hype about coffee, that is, people are claiming we should hate what went down because the price of coffee will go up. What will happen is that the price of Colombian coffee MIGHT go up… consumers will buy alternatives, Colombia might push to make theirs more affordable, and entrepreneurs can take advantage of circumstances to invent, provide, or promote alternatives.
Venture capital has been getting slammed for about a decade as entrepreneurship moved heavily beyond Silicon Valley and every entrepreneur with a small business felt they should be entitled to VC. The model works, as it was; the complaints stem from VCs who shouldn’t be and people who feel it’s unfair.
Bootstrapping is harder and harder… it is? Almost everything I do has accelerated in the last 12 months, both faster and more affordable, because of AI.
*** THAT SAID *** Yes! We desperately need to force our government to talk in terms of relative affordability, NOT GDP, Stock Market, or Employment Rates – affordability SUCKS.
VCs leaning on DC… frankly, we’ll see. The claim that this is the rise of the Oligarchy is
just a reframing of the crony capitalism that has been SOP for decades. Democrats want to distance themselves from the fact that they did it, by asserting that the Republicans are doing it, differently. It could still prove out that the wealth wins and stays in control… then again, everyone in Washington is pushing for deregulation so for a change, we have demand that it stop.
Politics aside, my assessment is that “move fast and break things” works great for early stage startups but the federal government is the absolute opposite of a startup, so all this breaking of things is gonna lead to some serious unintended consequences.
The one area congress should decrease spending is defense. Simply put the business of war while profitable for the US and all other countries is unsustainable. Cut our defense budget by 25%, balance the budget like a smart investor: save more than you spend and invest in green and new technologies where we shine and innovate. Provide funding for education and teach youngsters how to think independently. Wow wouldn’t that just go against any authoritarian monopolistic tendencies.
Wonderful push. Absolutely agree!
Apparently, the Pentagon has failed to be able to account for their spending over the last 7 reviews. How many trillions of dollars are going into the war machine for which we do not have tracking or accountability? The pentagon must be held accountable for their spending and transparency has to be coded into law. And I agree, we are involved in way too many wars and military conflicts that are probably none of our business. We don’t have the money to spend–so we should stop pretending like we do.
And we’ve LOST all the wars since WWII. Yes you can fact check this. 😉
Disruption, Yes! Malfeasance, No!