A large majority of Republicans think that President-elect Donald Trump will lower grocery costs, according to a new poll. Trump himself said that would be “very hard.”

Three-quarters of Republicans said grocery costs would go down under Trump, according to a new CBS News/YouGov poll. On the other hand, 68% of Democrats expected prices to rise. Independent voters were less sure, with 39% saying they expected an increase, 35% expecting a decrease, and 26% figuring the costs won’t change at all. The poll has a sample size of 2,244 American adults. The margin of error is 2.4%.

Despite campaigning on lowering the cost of groceries, Trump seemed to backtrack in his Time magazine Person of the Year interview.

“It’s hard to bring things down once they’re up. You know, it’s very hard,” he said.

Trump is correct. There’s not a lot a president can do to directly affect grocery costs in the short term, according to Politico. The types of policies a president can enact are typically long-term solutions. One of Trump’s plans to lower costs across the board is specifically to work on the amount of fuel available, lowering energy costs. And while fuel is expensive, and the food industry requires lots of transportation, it’s just one factor, Politico reports.

But one of Trump’s favorite policies—increasing tariffs—is more likely to raise prices. Economist Wendy Edelberg, PhD, suggested that his proposed tariffs could boost food costs by 10-20%, according to Glamour. Tariffs also have historically cost people jobs. During Trump’s first term, his import tariffs cost 245,000 U.S. jobs, according to a 2021 study by the US-China Business Council.

Something that could help, however, is a regulation on price-fixing. In August, a lawsuit against data analytics and consulting firm Agri Stats alleged the company worked with meat processors to keep prices high, according to Food & Wine. The company is accused of sharing price and cost information among competitors so they can all agree on a higher-than-necessary price to keep profits high.

Like the meat industry, which is controlled by just four companies, according to Politico, the number of grocery chains is shrinking. A lack of competition can lead to situations like Kroger admitting to raising prices on dairy products further than necessary during the pandemic, according to Bloomberg. However, antitrust legislation and controls on prices are unpopular with lawmakers generally, especially with pro-business Republicans.

Daniel Scheitrum, a Cal Poly professor of agribusiness, told Politico that acting on this would be an effective way of lowering prices.

“This anti-competitive activity, it’s not just textbook discussion. This is actually happening and being litigated in our food system. If the federal government can rein in anti-competitive behavior, supply restrictions, price-fixing, that could bring down food prices in the U.S.,” he said.

But experts expect the new Trump administration to pull back on antitrust regulations outside of the tech industry, according to The Economist. And despite the effect lowering fuel costs could have on food prices, legal analysts at Stinson expect oil and gas industries to face less in the way of antitrust efforts.

Or, in other words, analysts across industries seem to think it’s unlikely the Trump administration will be able to lower grocery costs—directly or otherwise.

Image via Wikimedia Commons

On Christmas Day, author and politician Marianne Williamson announced her candidacy for chair of the Democratic National Committee.

Williamson is perhaps best known for her two long-shot Democratic presidential candidacies in 2020 and 2024. However, she’s also been the leader of the Church of Today, an author of self-help books and was Oprah Winfrey’s “spiritual advisor,” according to Vox.

Williamson announced her run for DNC chair on her Substack newsletter, where she urged members of the DNC to sign a petition backing her.

READ MORE: More Than a Quarter of Democrats Are Undecided in 2024 Presidential Race: Poll

“President Trump has ushered in an age of political theatre – a collective adrenaline rush that has enabled him to not only move masses of people into his camp but also masses of people away from ours. It does not serve us to underestimate the historic nature of what he has achieved,” she wrote.

“In fact, it’s important that we recognize the psychological and emotional dimensions of Trump’s appeal. We need to understand it to create the energy to counter it. MAGA is a distinctly 21^st century political movement and it will not be defeated by a 20^th century tool kit,” Williamson continued.

She argues that her two presidential runs allowed her to speak with many different communities of voters across the United States. She says she’s “witnessed up close the fraying bonds of affection between the party and the working people,” and says it’s time to create “a new party.”

Her vision of the Democratic party is “A party that listens more, and makes people feel that their thoughts and feelings are as important as their wallets,” with an emphasis on serving the working class.

Williamson is progressive, with a platform calling for free college and preschool, “medicare for all,” and $100 billion to be paid in reparations for slavery. However, she has not proven popular in elections, typically receiving between 2-3% in primaries.

She can be a polarizing figure. While her progressive polices have earned her fans, critics have slammed her views on health care. She’s previously said vaccinations and antidepressants “can literally kill people,” according to Vox. In one of her books, she said “sickness is an illusion and does not exist” and called cancer and AIDS “physical manifestations of a psychic scream.”

But while Williamson has a friendly, new-age sort of public persona—the sort of person who urges people watching the 2020 Democratic debates to do yoga instead of playing a drinking game—there are reports of her being difficult to work for. Former staffers on her 2020 presidential campaign said she was prone to “foaming, spitting, uncontrollable rage,” according to Politico. She has denied these allegations, saying those who speak out against her are “trying to score points with the political establishment by smearing me.”

Image by Gage Skidmore, used via Creative Commons license.

New Jersey has become the third state, with Illinois and Michigan, to stop schools and public libraries from banning books.

Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat, signed the Freedom to Read Act earlier this month on December 9, at the Princeton Public Library. The act keeps age-appropriate books available to students at public schools and libraries.

“The Freedom to Read Act cements New Jersey’s role on the forefront of preventing book bans and protecting the intellectual freedom of our educators and students. Across the nation, we have seen attempts to suppress and censor the stories and experiences of others. I’m proud to amplify the voices of our past and present, as there is no better way for our children to prepare for the future than to read freely,” Murphy said.

READ MORE: Tim Walz Mocks Anti-LGBTQ Book Bans During HRC Speech

The law also protects librarians from being sued in criminal or civil court. This is in clear contrast to laws in other states like Idaho, where libraries that allow young patrons to check out a book deemed inappropriate are given a mandatory $250 fine. Idaho’s law also allows libraries and individual librarians to be sued, with no cap on the amount of damages that can be awarded.

The New Jersey law will make school boards and libraries establish curation policies and set up a review system to address concerns over individual materials. That said, books cannot be banned because of an author’s identity or background, or their personal or political views. Banning books based on the offensiveness of content is not allowed either, unless it’s developmentally inappropriate.

For example, while one could—and should!—ban a preschooler from checking out a collection of Tom of Finland artwork because it’s clearly for adults, they’re free to get And Tango Makes Three, the children’s book about gay penguins.

“The freedom to read and to freely access information is an essential part of a quality education and a core component of our democracy,” New Jersey Senate President Nick Scutari said. “This law will help New Jersey libraries guard against politically-inspired censorship and protect librarians from harassment for simply doing their job.”

This is another departure from other states’ bans, which are often written so vaguely to leave librarians in a lurch. The Idaho law officially bans “obscene materials” but defines it very broadly. “Homosexuality” is included in the definition of “obscene materials,” without clarifying if it means queer characters in a book or explicit sex. To avoid prosecution by an overzealous activist, one Idaho library even prohibits anyone under 18 from entering the adult section without their parent or guardian signing a form on every visit. Another small library had to go adults-only.

While three states have prohibited banning books, the Associated Press reports that over 15 states have introduced bills this year that would punish librarians for “inappropriate” books being given to patrons.

Image via Shutterstock