Trump’s ‘promising start,’ a GOP win on Medicaid reform and other commentary

Mideast journal: Trump’s ‘Promising Start’

President Trump “would have made a good sheikh,” quips Daniel McCarthy at The Spectator. “He doesn’t drink, he loves developing flashy properties to show off his power and wealth, and he’s brutally realistic about the role of oil (and other commodities) in world politics.” In Riyadh, “he declared ‘a land of peace, safety, harmony, opportunity, innovation, and achievement’ ” in the Middle East. It’s a “rosy” vision, but not “ideological”: New Middle East leaders, like Prince Mohammad bin Salman, prioritize “commerce, not chaos” (as Trump put it). The prez sees that view aligning “with his approach to the Abraham Accords.” It will take all of Trump’s skill and luck “to make peace in the Middle East,” but “he’s made a promising start.”

From the right: A GOP Win on Medicaid Reform

“The recently released House Energy and Commerce Committee draft proposals” for Medicaid reform “avoid the classic Republican mistake” of “appearing to care more about saving money than saving lives,” cheers Henry Olsen at the Washington Examiner. “The classic GOP method” for reforming entitlements has always been “politically unpopular” because Republicans don’t make clear “who will bear the brunt of the reduced spending.” The House plan makes “targeted changes that are politically defensible,” including requiring working-age, able-bodied Medicaid recipients without dependents “to work, go to school, or engage in community service for at least 80 hours a month.” This is a far more popular approach, as Americans “want the government to be generous to those who need it, but to cut off those who don’t.”

Libertarian: ‘Eminent Domain’ Gone Wild in NJ

Honey Meerzon’s parents are Jews from the Soviet Union; Luis Romero’s parents fled communist Cuba. The two fear their New Jersey city is about to take their businesses from them via “the all-too-American process of eminent domain,” fumes Reason’s Christian Britschgi. Perth Amboy deemed their buildings “blighted” — based on an incorrect and flimsy report, they credibly say — allowing it to confiscate their properties. State law gives municipalities powers that create “a lot of incentive to see blight that isn’t there,” and Perth Amboy is moving ahead with a redevelopment project nearby. “The reason [my parents] left Cuba” is that there “they just come to your home, say ‘we want this property. You have to get out,’ ” says Romero. “Here it’s done legally.”

Campus watch: Free Speech Double Standard

“Our country’s most esteemed institutions of higher learning — the Ivy League schools — should have figured out how to ensure free speech rights on campus long ago,” laments USA Today’s Ingrid Jacques. But “Brown University student Alex Shieh learned that the hard way” as school administrators didn’t care for the DOGE-like emails the student journalist sent “asking them basic questions about what their jobs entail.” They “launched a weekslong review into his reporting,” and began disciplinary hearings for Shieh and others at the student paper. Meanwhile, students at Columbia and Harvard get away with “violent anti-Israel protests” and harassment. “The twisted view of free speech at these Ivy League schools can’t be ignored.”

Trade desk: Just Say No to Chinese Cars

One goal of President Trump’s trade policy is that “not only Japanese but Chinese automakers should build cars here,” observes City Journal’s Jordan McGillis. No: “On purely national security grounds, Chinese cars and auto-tech need to stay off American roads.” Why? “The operation of virtually all new cars, whether electric or internal combustion, is inextricable from computing elements” — and these “have at least some Chinese-authored code embedded within them.” That “underscores the need for more transparency.” China is “fond of shashoujian— ‘assassin’s mace’ weapons” — like, say, malicious code allowing cars to be “suddenly bricked like old smartphones” or have their navigation systems “scrambled.” “China’s auto industry is not just a competitor in global markets; it is a vector of national security vulnerability.”

— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board