Data Edition

A new Economic Innovation Group study finds that the Opportunity Zones enacted as part of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act spurred 300,000 new housing units at a cost of just $26,000 per unit—substantially outperforming other housing incentives.

Another impressive finding: Before being designated as Opportunity Zones, these areas were falling behind economically and becoming more isolated from thriving regions. But after they were designated as OZs, their housing growth outpaced the rest of the country.

What is an OZ? Being designated as an Opportunity Zone means an economically distressed area becomes eligible for tax incentives to attract investment, spur development and encourage economic growth. 

• The OZ program differs from traditional housing incentives in that it primarily uses tax deferrals and reductions on capital gains to attract private investment into lower income areas, whereas traditional programs typically rely on direct subsidies, tax credits or government grants to support the construction of affordable housing.

Connecting the dots: In a video essay that made waves this week, Ezra Klein argued that President Trump’s victory was fueled by sky-high costs in Democrat-run states, where housing and economic policies have made living unaffordable. The irony is that GOP-backed, market-driven initiatives—like the TCJA’s Opportunity Zones and Texas’ pro-development stance—have arguably been more effective at boosting affordability than so-called progressive policies.

According to the latest Congressional Budget Office projections, the deficit is growing at a faster rate so far in 2025 than it did over the same period last year.

• The deficit increased by $319 billion compared to the first five months of FY 2024.

• Revenues rose by just 2% ($37 billion), while outlays surged by 7% (when adjusted for timing shifts).

• In February alone, the government incurred a deficit of $308 billion.

But hasn’t DOGE been curbing spending? Despite DOGE’s claims of trimming $55 billion from the budget as of February, analyst Jessica Riedl of the Manhattan Institute suggests the actual savings are a mere $2 billion.

The upshot: The relentless rise in government spending, despite DOGE’s headline-grabbing efforts, reinforces the idea that meaningful deficit reduction won’t come from efficiency tweaks but from addressing structural issues, such as entitlement reform.

The populist case for President Trump’s tariffs leans on the idea of working-class decline, but a major dent in that narrative—real wages are near all-time highs.

What Newsweek opinion editor Batya Ungar-Sargon tweeted on Tuesday: “In 1971, the high water mark for working-class wages, manufacturing was 25% of the U.S. GDP. Today it's 10%. Everything Trump is doing with tariffs and immigration controls is to give the American worker a shot at the American Dream again after half a century of race-to-the-bottom economics that enriched the elites. So naturally, the elites are apoplectic.”

The reaction: As a number of X users pointed out, Sargon is incorrect when she says that working-class wages peaked in 1971.

• According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, working-class wages hit their peak more recently—in December 2024.

There’s no denying that certain economic pressures, like the soaring costs of housing and healthcare, have made life harder for workers. But at the same time, it feels like some people are so committed to a decline narrative that they always have to paint things out to be as catastrophic as possible. In my mind, this isn’t a good tendency, and it’s okay to acknowledge where things have improved.

U.S. Census and Bureau of Economic Analysis data shows the ratio of U.S. imports of machinery and transport equipment to the industry’s gross output has more than doubled over the past two decades—from 28% in 1997 to more than 60% last year.

What’s driving this? The long-term erosion of domestic manufacturing, offshoring of production to lower-cost countries and global supply chains that have made U.S. industry deeply dependent on imports.

The bottom line: You can understand why Trump wants to bring manufacturing back—after all, making more things in the U.S. sounds like a win for workers, national security, and the economy. But the problem is, U.S. manufacturers still rely on imported materials and machinery to build things here. If tariffs make those imports more expensive, it could actually hurt domestic production instead of helping it. It’s a catch-22: you want more stuff made in America, but you still need parts and equipment from overseas to make that happen. The challenge for Trump is figuring out how to unwind decades of offshoring without kneecapping the industries he’s trying to revive.

Per a new analysis conducted by The Economist, for the first time in over a decade surveys point to a slight but noticeable rebound in young people’s mental health—less depression, higher happiness, and fewer suicides.

Also: For the first time, all 50 states and D.C. have seen some recovery from the fentanyl crisis, according to a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill analysis of CDC overdose records, which found that fatal overdoses have declined nationwide.

• Researchers are optimistic that this isn’t just a temporary dip—if current trends hold, the U.S. could see overdose rates drop back to pre-fentanyl levels.