In A Less Corrupt Administration That $1.8 Billion Could Have Done So Much Good

 The following cartoon editorial is by Aubrey Hirsch at aubreyhirsch.substack.com.

Trump's Reckless War With Iran Has Caused 4 Set Backs For The U.S.

The following is part of a post by the New York Times editorial board:

When President Trump attacked Iran on Feb. 28, we called his decision reckless. He went to war without seeking congressional approval or the support of most allies. He offered thin and contradictory justifications to the American people. He failed to explain why this naïve attempt at regime change would end better than earlier attempts by the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

In the six weeks since, the recklessness of his war has become clearer yet. . . .

The war has weakened the United States. We count four main setbacks for America’s national interests that are the direct result of Mr. Trump’s carelessness. These setbacks likewise weaken global democracy when authoritarians in China, Russia and elsewhere were already feeling emboldened.

The most tangible blow to the United States and the world is the increased influence that Iran has secured over the global economy by weaponizing the Strait of Hormuz. About 20 percent of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas flows through the strait, which is next to Iran’s southern shore.

Before the war, Iran’s leaders feared that blocking traffic would invite new economic sanctions and a military attack. Once the attack happened anyway, Iran closed the strait to nearly all traffic except its own ships. The policy is inexpensive because it mostly involves a threat, namely that a drone, missile or small boat may blow up a tanker. Forcibly reopening the strait, by contrast, would require an enormous military operation potentially including ground troops and an extended occupation.

Mr. Trump’s lack of foresight about the strait reveals glaring incompetence. . . . 

The second setback is to America’s military standing around the world. This war, together with recent U.S. assistance to Ukraine, Israel and other allies, has burned through a substantial portion of the stockpile of some weapons, such as Tomahawk missiles and Patriot interceptors (which can shoot down other missiles). Experts believe the Pentagon used more than one-quarter of its Tomahawk missiles just in the war against Iran. Returning the stockpile to its previous size will take years, and the United States will have to make tough choices about where to maintain its military strength in the meantime. Already, the Pentagon has pulled missile defenses from South Korea.

The war has also revealed that the U.S. military is vulnerable to new ways of warfare. . . .

The war’s third big cost is to America’s alliances. Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada and most of Western Europe refused to support the United States in this war — unsurprisingly, given Mr. Trump’s treatment of them. When he demanded their help in reopening the Strait of Hormuz, most allies declined. These countries will remain allies in important ways, but they have made clear that they no longer consider the United States a reliable friend. They are working to build stronger relationships with one another so that they can better resist Washington in the future. . . .

The fourth setback is to America’s moral authority. For all the flaws of this country, it remains a beacon to many around the world. When pollsters ask people where they would move if they could, the United States is consistently the runaway No. 1 answer. America’s appeal stems not only from its prosperity but also from its freedom and democratic values. Mr. Trump has undercut those values for his entire political career and perhaps never more than in the past week, when he made odious threats to erase Iranian civilization. His secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, made a series of bloodthirsty remarks, including a threat to offer “no quarter, no mercy for our enemies.”

Those would be war crimes. Mr. Trump and Mr. Hegseth have embraced a brutal approach to armed conflict that the United States led the world in rejecting after World War II. By doing so, they have undermined the foundations of America’s global leadership, which claims to place human dignity at the center of an argument for a freer and more open world. 

Trump's Cognitive Decline (And Immorality) Make Him Unfit To Be President

The following is part of an editorial by the Las Vegas Sun: 

Donald Trump’s racism, sexism, xenophobia and penchant for corruption have long made him unfit for any public office, let alone the presidency. But as he continues his bid for a second term in the White House, there is an unsettling and undeniable shift that is leading many experts, observers and even some Trump supporters to conclude that the former president’s mental acuity and sharpness are also in decline, that his physical health and stamina are waning and that his frustration and anger are boiling over.

Americans from both sides of the political spectrum should be alarmed by Trump’s words and behavior. The nation must confront the fact that beyond his hateful character, he is crippled cognitively and showing clear signs of mental illness.

There’s no need to resort to armchair psychology to interpret what’s apparent. If victorious, Trump would be the oldest president ever inaugurated. In recent weeks, he has canceled an increasing number of public appearances, with Trump’s own campaign citing the candidate’s exhaustion. When he does appear publicly, Trump struggles to complete sentences or sustain coherent thoughts, and has shown a pronounced difficulty concentrating and a tendency to repeat himself, sometimes within the same sentence. . . .

For those who believe in a country governed by checks, balances and the rule of law, a return to Trumpian leadership is dangerous in its own right. But to do so with an impaired leader who cannot govern competently and a fellow authoritarian waiting in the wings is perilous.

As voters consider Trump’s latest bid for the presidency, it’s essential to recognize that this election is not merely a choice between policy platforms or party loyalties. It’s a test of our willingness to safeguard our nation from leaders whose fitness for office is in serious question. This election is about protecting the integrity of our democracy from those who would let it collapse in the name of power, loyalty or expedience.

Donald Trump has never had the moral compass to lead this country. But even his supporters cannot afford to ignore the signs that he may no longer have the mental faculties to lead it either. The stakes are simply too high.

Kamala Harris Is The Patriotic Choice For President

This is just part of an editorial by the New York Times editorial board: 

It is hard to imagine a candidate more unworthy to serve as president of the United States than Donald Trump. He has proved himself morally unfit for an office that asks its occupant to put the good of the nation above self-interest. He has proved himself temperamentally unfit for a role that requires the very qualities — wisdom, honesty, empathy, courage, restraint, humility, discipline — that he most lacks.

Those disqualifying characteristics are compounded by everything else that limits his ability to fulfill the duties of the president: his many criminal charges, his advancing age, his fundamental lack of interest in policy and his increasingly bizarre cast of associates.

This unequivocal, dispiriting truth — Donald Trump is not fit to be president — should be enough for any voter who cares about the health of our country and the stability of our democracy to deny him re-election.

For this reason, regardless of any political disagreements voters might have with her, Kamala Harris is the only patriotic choice for president.

Most presidential elections are, at their core, about two different visions of America that emerge from competing policies and principles. This one is about something more foundational. It is about whether we invite into the highest office in the land a man who has revealed, unmistakably, that he will degrade the values, defy the norms and dismantle the institutions that have made our country strong.

As a dedicated public servant who has demonstrated care, competence and an unwavering commitment to the Constitution, Ms. Harris stands alone in this race. She may not be the perfect candidate for every voter, especially those who are frustrated and angry about our government’s failures to fix what’s broken — from our immigration system to public schools to housing costs to gun violence. Yet we urge Americans to contrast Ms. Harris’s record with her opponent’s.

Ms. Harris is more than a necessary alternative. There is also an optimistic case for elevating her, one that is rooted in her policies and borne out by her experience as vice president, a senator and a state attorney general.

Donald Trump Is Unfit For Office!

 

The following is part of an editorial by The New York Times editorial board:

Next week, for the third time in eight years, Donald Trump will be nominated as the Republican Party’s candidate for president of the United States. A once great political party now serves the interests of one man, a man as demonstrably unsuited for the office of president as any to run in the long history of the Republic, a man whose values, temperament, ideas and language are directly opposed to so much of what has made this country great. . . .

Mr. Trump has shown a character unworthy of the responsibilities of the presidency. He has demonstrated an utter lack of respect for the Constitution, the rule of law and the American people. Instead of a cogent vision for the country’s future, Mr. Trump is animated by a thirst for political power: to use the levers of government to advance his interests, satisfy his impulses and exact retribution against those who he thinks have wronged him.

He is, quite simply, unfit to lead. . . .

We urge voters to see the dangers of a second Trump term clearly and to reject it. The stakes and significance of the presidency demand a person who has essential qualities and values to earn our trust, and on each one, Donald Trump fails. . . .

Voters frustrated by inflation and immigration or attracted by the force of Mr. Trump’s personality should pause and take note of his words and promises. They have little to do with unity and healing and a lot to do with making the divisions and anger in our society wider and more intense than they already are.

The Republican Party is making its choice next week; soon all Americans will be able to make their own choice. What would Mr. Trump do in a second term? He has told Americans who he is and shown them what kind of leader he would be.

When someone fails so many foundational tests, you don’t give him the most important job in the world.

With The Economy Booming, It's Time To Solve Problems

From the editorial board of The Washington Post:

For the first time in a while, the nation — and its policymakers — can step out of crisis mode. This is an ideal moment for President Biden and Congress not just to take a victory lap but also to start tackling the United States’ long-running challenges.

The surprises keep coming for the U.S. economy — and nearly all have been worth cheering lately. Growth was better than expected this spring. Inflation is cooling off faster than anticipated. Unemployment remains near half-century lows. Optimism is picking up. Consumer spending remains solid. Wages are now rising faster than inflation. UPS workers are not going to strike after the company gave them a large raise. The stock market is near all-time highs. Wall Street banks no longer predictan imminent recession. Business investment is picking up. Even housingappears to be turning around. The nation might be able to achieve what many experts deemed impossible: bringing down inflation without triggering mass layoffs and a downturn.

Mr. Biden is eager to take credit for this Goldilocks economy. The latest data show government investments in infrastructure and manufacturingare helping, but they are modest so far in a $25 trillion economy. The Federal Reserve’s aggressive battle against inflation has played a bigger role. But the largest factor of all appears to be an economy returning to normal after three years of turmoil. Fed Chair Jerome H. Powell used the words “normal” or “normalization” nine times in his news conference Wednesday to characterize everything from supply chains to the job market.

Americans are starting to notice the improvement. Sentiment has jumped in recent weeks. People are finally putting the pandemic behind them and allowing themselves to embrace fun and optimism again. This is the summer of Taylor Swift, friendship bracelets, European vacations and “Barbie” movie laughs. It’s a comeback era.

It’s especially pronounced how much the United States bounced back vs. the rest of the world. China’s economy is sluggish, Germany’s is barely out of a recession, and Britain still has inflation near 8 percent. In the United States, the comeback has been so strong that growth is nearly back to its pre-pandemic trend. It’s a similar story for middle-class wages, which are close to the pre-pandemic trend even after adjusting for the recent inflation shock.

That doesn’t mean the country lacks problems. Lower-income households still feel higher costs, a reminder that the inflation battle isn’t over. Owning a home remains out of reach for many, and credit card debt is at a record high. Beyond economics, the ongoing GOP assaults on abortion, LGBTQ+ rights and basic facts about slavery are another reminder of how far from normal some aspects of life remain.

Even so, the country’s late good fortune offers its leaders an opportunity to take a breath and address some long-term national problems. At the top of the list are the $32 trillion national debt and immigration. Addressing these would set up the United States for stronger growth in coming decades. It would also prove to the world that American leaders are still capable of fixing tough problems.

Social Security won’t be able to pay full benefits as early as 2034. Simple changes now — mainly increasing taxes on the wealthy and slowing their benefit growth — would save the program for all, especially the lower- and middle-class Americans who really need it. We spelled out other ways to stabilize debt over the next decade — a mix of careful spending trims and tax modifications — in a recent series. Failure to act would mean the U.S. government would spend a growing amount on interest costs, reducing the government’s and the private sector’s ability to make investments in the future.

Meanwhile, immigration has been a top issue for 20 years. As baby boomers retire, the United States needs more workers. There has been an encouraging uptick in people entering the labor force again, especially women of color, but more workers are needed. The United States is in a global war for talent. Mr. Biden’s plans to build more factories at home are already being delayed citing a shortage of skilled construction workers. Congress is overdue for a major upgrade to immigration policies. In the meantime, Mr. Biden is right to utilize every power he has to let in more legal immigrants through asylum and parole.

The country has seen a remarkable economic comeback. Now it’s time to aim higher. 

Don't Spend More On Defense - Just Spend Smarter

 

The following post about defense spending is by the editorial board of The Washington Post. They Are right!

War and peace have one unlikely thing in common: It isn’t hard to write a defense budget for either. Governments at war turn the spigots on; those at peace tend to shut them off. More challenging is drafting a military blueprint in a grayer zone, when U.S. troops are not in combat but requests for military aid from allies are on the rise and threats of an even bigger crisis loom. Washington has provided more than $45 billion in military aid to Ukraine since just before Russia’s invasion; there is little sign of that conflict abating. China, meanwhile, continues to creep toward Taiwan.

But that does not mean the $842 billion President Biden suggested spending on defense next year — up more than one-third from $630 billion in 2015 — should march into law unquestioned. At a time when dollars for all needs are in short supply and the nation’s debt is rising unsustainably, the question cannot be by what percentage the Defense Department’s budget should automatically grow this year. It should be:How do we ensure our military is best prepared for whatever comes?

One obvious answer: by spending smarter.

However the current debt ceiling negotiations conclude, Congress should press the civilians who oversee our military to move more quickly from crewed to uncrewed systems, to speed the shift from surface to subsurface vessels and mine warfare; to hurry investment in cyberdefenses and secure communications; and direct the services to prioritize maintenance and spares over procurement of new systems, which often arrive without the funds for ordnance, upkeep and parts that make them reliably lethal. Significant savings could be realized over the next decade while making the military more nimble and more powerful.

Congress would help matters if it stopped piling on funds for weapons and programs the Pentagon doesn’t want. Each year, lawmakers add somewhere between $15 billion and $60 billion to military budgets the Pentagon did not ask for. The Space Force, for example, received $1.7 billion more in December’s continuing resolution than the Pentagon requested. Featherbedding is so fully entrenched in the annual budget games that 19 Pentagon agencies are required by statute to report to Congress on any “unfunded priorities” they could not get past the Office of Management and Budget on their way to Capitol Hill. Those reports are an invitation for lawmakers to fund them anyway. Over a decade, that unrequested spending could, by itself, top a quarter of a trillion dollars.

Submarines, both conventional and nuclear-armed, are among the country’s greatest technological advantages. The Navy is a generation ahead of other nations below the surface and needs to stay ahead. That means building the Columbia class of nuclear missile subs and doing so in such a way that a related sub deal with Australia can also move forward. But surface shipbuilding priorities, oddly, too often resemble putting cart before horse. The Navy, dreaming of a 355-ship fleet, remains focused on building new vessels instead of maintaining those it already has. The Pentagon is far behind on ship maintenance, in both private and public shipyards; it needs to boost the ability of those facilities to repair more ships and find (or train) workers with the skills to do so. Otherwise, the Navy will continue to cannibalize parts from one ship to keep others afloat, retire vessels before the end of their useful life spans and struggle to support missions overseas because of an inability to keep the ships it already has ready for action.

Nor does it seem wise, in the era of cheap drones and relatively inexpensive missiles, to keep building large surface ships that require crews of thousands of men and women. Instead of buying a fifth Ford-class nuclear-powered carrier, it would be wiser to redirect some of those funds into renovating the undercapitalized shipyards that can keep the 293 ships that Congress has already bought combat-ready. Meanwhile, the service is woefully underinvested in both minesweeping and mine warfare at a time when these uncrewed devices can move, detect, identify and increasingly attack enemy ships on their own — with far less risk to sailors.

The Editorial Board supports an Air Force proposal, made in the interest of speeding weapons into warfighters’ hands, that would allow the Pentagon to reprogram up to $300 million per year without congressional approval. Given that Congress can take a year to approve a Pentagon budget, military planners need the flexibility to buy many items — particularly software — more quickly. But the Air Force has fairly come under questioning (even from some Senate Republicans) for spending so much on short-range fighters at the expense of longer-range strike, tanker and cargo programs. The F-35 Lightning might someday prove that it is worth the $412 billion taxpayers will spend just to build it, but it is not clear what sustaining role the fighter can play over the Taiwan Strait if pilots lack “depth of magazine” — i.e., ample munitions — they’ll need to fight. As one former Pentagon planner put it: We can send 500 fighters to Asia in a few days, but they will run out of ordnance a few days later. The Air Force needs to shift dollars out of expensive airframes and engines and into missiles — and the industrial base that can produce them.

As for the Army, it is enjoying something of a renaissance, as a number of its legacy weapons systems — from armor to artillery to a host of smart and dumb munitions — have taken center stage in Ukraine’s war with Russia. The Reagan-era Patriot missile defense system, for example, has outperformed in the theater, but the battle for control of the skies in Ukraine is a reminder that a more concerted effort by Army planners around air defense — a somewhat neglected mission inside the service — would help our allies in both Europe and Asia. At the same time, command focus on recruiting — and making the work of recruiting an important career move — would bolster the case for having more than 450,000 troops on active duty when a hefty portion of service personnel will never deploy. In general, the services all have too many people in uniform doing jobs that civilians could do. Fixing that mismatch could save nearly $20 billion over 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office estimates.

The Pentagon is launching an overhaul of the nuclear triad — expected to cost a half-trillion dollars or more — that should not be undertaken without fuller consideration of alternative approaches. The Air Force hopes to buy 100 B21 Raider bombers to replace the B2 and B1s; the service should revive plans to pilot some of the new bombers remotely. The Air Force also wants to modernize the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile system, spread in silos across North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming. That upgrade could be delayed for a decade with little threat to the nation’s ability to deter or win a nuclear conflict. Some have argued that it would be more pragmatic to convert sub-based Trident missiles for land-based silos than replace the Minuteman with a new generation of Sentinel ICBMs.

Other needs get lost in the push for big-ticket platforms. There is a shortage of predictive analytics that would help commanders anticipate attacks before they occur. The services should prioritize artificial-intelligence-driven systems to create false targets that can confuse enemies into seeing 100 planes, ships or tanks where perhaps only a dozen exist. Soldiers and sailors need more in the way of redundant communication networks and self-healing cyberdefenses to stop the enemy from disrupting command and control. And then there’s the easy stuff: Lawmakers, widely outspoken in their worry about China, have yet to fully fund the Philippine base-sharing arrangement that the Biden administration negotiated with the government of Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Such a move would send a strong signal of joint resolve to Beijing, especially after years of harsh words between Manila and Washington.

For much of the past eight years, Congress has not asked the Pentagon to spend more smartly. It has mostly just asked the Pentagon to spend more. It is time for a more hardheaded approach.

No One Needs (Or Should Have) An Assault Rifle

 The following is most of an editorial by the editorial board of The Washington Post:

Three adults and three children have been killed in a Nashville school shooting by a 28-year-old assailant with three guns, including at least one AR-15-style rifle.

These attacks are always heart-wrenching. But they’re not surprising anymore — neither the massacres themselves nor the weapons used to carry them out. Ten of the 17 deadliest mass killings in the United States since 2012 involved AR-15s. The names of the towns and cities where these tragedies took place have become familiar: Newtown, San Bernardino, Las Vegas, Parkland, Uvalde and beyond. The Post chronicles the journey this now-iconic rifle took from military-issued firearm to off-the-shelf bestseller, and underscores the danger in the public’s embrace of a weapon the Defense Department once lauded for its “phenomenal lethality.”

“I don’t know why anyone needs an AR-15,” President Donald Trump reportedly told aides in August 2019 after back-to-back mass shootings in Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso. There’s no good answer. The AR-15 was designed for soldiers, yet its associations with warfare eventually became a selling point for everyday buyers. “Use what they use,” exhorted one ad displaying professionals wielding tactical rifles. Now, about 1 in 20 U.S. adults own at least one AR-15. That’s roughly 16 million people, storing roughly 20 million guns designed to mow down enemies on the battlefield with brutal efficiency. Two-thirds of these were crafted in the past decade — and when more people die, popularity doesn’t fall. Instead, it rises.

The AR-15, The Post explains, is materially different from traditional handguns. The rifle fires very small bullets at very fast speeds. The projectiles don’t move straight and smooth through human targets like those from a traditional handgun. Their velocity turns them unstable upon penetration, so that they tumble through flesh and vital organs. This so-called blast effect literally tears people apart. A trauma surgeon notes, “you don’t see the muscle … just bone and skin and missing parts.” Another mentions tissue that “crumbled into your hands.”

A Texas Ranger speaks of bullets that “disintegrated” a toddler’s skull.

This explains the lead poisoning that plagues survivors of the shooting in Sutherland Springs, Tex.; David Colbath, 61, can scarcely stand or use his hands without pain, and 25-year-old Morgan Workman probably can’t have a baby. It explains the evisceration of small bodies such as that of Noah Pozner, 6, murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary, and Peter Wang, 15, killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High. The Post examined the way bullets broke inside of them — obliterating Noah’s jaw and Peter’s skull, filling their chests with blood and leaving behind gaping exit wounds.

Even thinking about these injuries is horrifying, so much so that crime scene photos are often kept confidential. But the gruesome reality of what an AR-15 can wreak poses an argument in itself: There is no excuse for the widespread availability of these weapons of war.

Welcome Home Brittney Griner!

 

The following is part of the response to Griner's release by the editorial board of the Houston Chronicle:

When Griner was arrested at a Russian airport in February on allegations that she had hashish oil in her luggage, she immediately became the most high-profile face of the international population of wrongful detainees as well as a symbol for the plight of grossly underpaid women athletes.

A two-time Olympian and one of the best women's basketball players in the world, the only reason Griner even set foot on Russian soil in the first place was to supplement her relatively paltry WNBA income. She was set to make $227,900 to suit up for the Phoenix Mercury, close to the maximum for a WNBA player and another $1 million playing overseas. By comparison, Stephen Curry, the highest-paid NBA player, will make $48 million this season. 

But the circumstances of Griner's arrest as an openly gay Black woman imprisoned in a country hostile to the LGBTQ community — and which just last month banned all forms of material promoting or "praising" LGBTQ relationships — created an unprecedented sense of urgency to pursue every option to bring her home. 

The Biden administration reclassified Griner's case in May, asserting she had been wrongfully detained, and kickstarting months of negotiations with the Russian government, no doubt complicated by the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, which the U.S. has condemned and buttressed Ukrainian defense efforts with billions in aid. When Griner was transferred to a penal colony last month, it only increased the pressure on those talks. 

That U.S. officials were forced to return arms dealer Viktor Bout to Russia in exchange for Griner underscores the difficulty in conducting good faith negotiations with a country that, under President Vladimir Putin, has demonstrated such a callous disregard for human life. There is simply no universe in which Griner and Bout are on equal standing. Even if you concede that Griner made a terrible mistake as a guest in a nation that punishes drug offenders harshly, Bout was convicted in a U.S. court of conspiring to kill Americans and providing material support to terrorist organizations. He has profited off of bloody conflicts across the globe, from Liberia to Afghanistan, earning the appalling nickname "the merchant of death" in the process.  

It is disappointing that, in a swap releasing this heinous war criminal, the U.S. failed to win freedom for more than one American prisoner. Even Cherelle Griner, in her remarks Thursday, acknowledged that Michigan corporate security executive Paul Whelan — whom U.S. officials say was baselessly jailed on espionage charges in 2018 — remains behind bars, saying Whelan's family "is in our hearts today." In turn, Whelan's brother David showed immense grace by commending the Biden administration for making "the right decision to bring Ms. Griner home and to make the deal that was possible, rather than waiting for the one that wasn't going to happen."

Both Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken committed to continue working to bring Whelan home, and it's certainly encouraging that the prisoner exchange led to a conversation between Blinken and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, a rare moment of international diplomacy at a time of highly strained relations. 

Whelan will never have the public profile Griner does. There aren't rallies at sports arenas or celebrities speaking out on his behalf. But if there's any hope for his eventual release, it's that he now has an ally in Cherelle and Brittney Griner who will use their platform to ensure that the phone lines between the U.S. and Russia remain open. 

"BG is not here to say this, but I will gladly speak on her behalf and say that BG and I will remain committed to the work of getting every American home including Paul," Cherelle Griner said. 

Welcome home, Brittney. Your safe return should be celebrated across the globe. Now it's our job as a nation to make sure that we sustain our advocacy for other international detainees who still await a joyous outcome.

It's Time For America To Change Marijuana Laws Nationally

President Biden has taken the first small steps toward changing marijuana laws in the United States. I hope this spurs a national change in those laws. 

Here is what the editorial board of The Washington Post thinks:

President Biden’s announcement of mass pardons for those convicted of federal marijuana possession charges comes just weeks before midterm elections that will determine control of Congress. It is not hard to detect the political calculation behind a decision likely to appeal to — and motivate — the young voters who could be key to Democrats winning. Yet it was also the right thing to do. Simple marijuana possession does not pose a serious threat to public safety, and users should not be hauled into the criminal justice system.

“Sending people to prison for possessing marijuana has upended too many lives … for conduct that many states no longer prohibit,” Mr. Biden tweeted Thursday. “That’s before you address the clear racial disparities around prosecution and conviction. Today, we start to right these wrongs.” In addition to his pardons of thousands of people with federal misdemeanor convictions for simple possession (not sale or distribution) of marijuana, Mr. Biden ordered a review of whether marijuana should continue to be classified as a Schedule I substance, the same category as heroin and LSD.

The impact will be more limited than the sweeping rhetoric suggests, because state, not federal, prosecutors bring the vast majority of simple possession cases, and Mr. Biden can pardon only those convicted of federal offenses. White House officials said 6,500 people convicted between 1992 and 2021, plus thousands more D.C. residents whom federal law covers, will be impacted. There are no people currently serving time in federal prison solely for marijuana possession, according to administration officials, but the president’s action will allow offenders’ records to be cleared, removing barriers to them getting jobs, finding housing or applying to college.

The largest effects might come as state officials follow Mr. Biden’s lead, as he urged governors to do. Early reactions to the president’s plea ran the gamut. Some states pointed to actions they have already taken to pardon or erase lesser marijuana convictions; some said they are taking formal steps to review the president’s request; some said they won’t take similar actions, either because they lack authority in their states or because they disagree with the president’s approach. Predictably, there were also those who saw opportunity to score their own political points. “Texas,” wrote a spokesman for Gov. Greg Abbott (R), “is not in the habit of taking criminal justice advice from the leader of the defund police party and someone who has overseen a criminal justice system run [amok].”

Opinion polls show that majorities of Americans favor releasing people imprisoned solely on marijuana-related charges and legalizing marijuana for medical and recreational use. States have taken notice: Nineteen states and the D.C. have legalized marijuana for adult recreational use, and 38 have legalized it for medical use. Five states, including Maryland, have legalization measures on their November ballots.

Marijuana use is a public health challenge that the criminal justice system cannot solve — and should not be asked to. We hope Mr. Biden’s move advances the shift away from criminalization.