United StatesOwnership & classification
Founded: 1968
Ownership
Reason magazine was founded in 1968 by Lanny Friedlander and since 1978 has been published by the Reason Foundation, a Los Angeles-based libertarian think tank established by Robert Poole. The foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, owns and operates the magazine and reason.com; its board of trustees has historically included prominent libertarian donors, with the late David H. Koch listed among its trustees.
Funding
The Reason Foundation is supported by tax-deductible donations and the sale of its publications. Disclosed giving has included large contributions from Koch-network sources such as the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation and from the Sarah Scaife Foundation, alongside other libertarian and conservative donors.
Affiliation & stance
Reason is an explicitly libertarian publication advancing free markets, individual liberty and limited government, and it is owned by an advocacy think tank rather than a neutral commercial publisher. While the magazine is editorially independent of any party or government, its control by the donor-funded Reason Foundation (with Koch-linked backing) supports a DEPENDENT classification as a think-tank/ideologically-funded outlet, with a CENTER_RIGHT (libertarian) lean.
Editorial lean
- Our estimate
- Lean Conservative
- Measured from coverage
- Centerbased on 350
67/100
Factual
59/100
Objective
399
Articles
399
reports
Factual: How accurately its articles report the facts, judged against primary sources and the cross-outlet consensus. Only articles that cite their sources are counted.
Objective: How neutral the writing is — whether reporting keeps the writer’s own preferences and opinions out of the article.
Recent coverage
Justice Alito on Originalism
In a recent Wall Street Journal article based on his forthcoming book, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito discusses his views on constitutional originalism. He argues for a 'populist' version of originalism, emphasizing the original public meaning of the Constitution as understood by ordinary people rather than legal elites. Alito imagines everyday colonists discussing the First Amendment in a tavern, suggesting that their interpretation would reflect common understanding rather than philosophical or legal expertise. However, he acknowledges potential drawbacks of the populist approach, including the risk of misunderstanding technical legal terms and challenges in addressing modern issues unforeseen by the Founding Fathers. While Alito leans toward populism, he suggests a hybrid approach combining elite and popular interpretations could be optimal.
Justice Alito on the Supreme Court: "We are not part of any political movement"
In a rare interview with CBS News, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito addressed concerns about the politicization of the judiciary. He emphasized that the justices are not aligned with any political movement and criticized leaders from both major political parties for portraying them as such. Alito stressed the importance of maintaining the court's independence and neutrality. The interview highlights ongoing debates about the role of the Supreme Court in American politics and the perception of judicial impartiality.
Are the Cornell 7 Being Tried on Social Media?
A special episode of The Reason Roundtable discusses the ongoing legal and social media controversy surrounding seven Cornell University fraternity members accused of sexual assault. The discussion covers conflicting accounts of the incident, questions about the distinction between misconduct and criminality, and concerns over the fairness of the investigation led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, who was appointed to the case by Governor Kathy Hochul. The panel also examines Hochul’s proposed changes to New York’s consent and intoxication laws, as well as the role of social media in amplifying the case nationally. Other topics include the recent botched execution of Christa Pike in Tennessee and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman’s stance on accepting risks associated with artificial intelligence.
Can Nebraska's Dan Osborn Win Over Libertarians?
Dan Osborn, an independent candidate running for Nebraska's U.S. Senate seat, is positioning himself as a populist outsider challenging incumbent Republican Senator Pete Ricketts. RealClear Polling describes his race as a 'toss up.' Osborn, a former industrial mechanic, union leader, and Navy veteran, frames his campaign as targeting the 'billionaire Epstein class,' while Republicans accuse him of being a disguised left-wing Democrat. During an interview with Reason, Osborn explains his decision to run independently, emphasizing his rejection of the two-party system and alignment with libertarian principles. He expresses support for figures like Senator Rand Paul and outlines policies such as ending mass surveillance, legalizing hemp farms, and implementing age caps for federal officials. The discussion covers various issues including tariffs, data centers, and the Second Amendment, highlighting Osborn's attempt to appeal to both libertarians and independents.
Just One GOP Justice Needs to Flip for Big Oil to Face Climate Accountability. Welp.
The article discusses the upcoming Supreme Court case Suncor Energy v. Boulder County, which centers on whether communities can sue oil and gas companies for contributing to climate change. Boulder County filed a lawsuit in 2018, alleging that companies like Suncor Energy and Exxon knowingly concealed the dangers of fossil fuel emissions and mislead the public. The county claims these actions led to costly climate-related damages, including increased flooding, droughts, and heatwaves, costing over $100 million in repairs and expected to cost another $100 million in adaptation efforts. While lower courts rejected Suncor's attempt to dismiss the case, the companies now seek a Supreme Court ruling that federal law preempts such lawsuits, potentially blocking community accountability.
"Federal Judges Receive Life Tenure—Not a Life Sentence"
This article discusses a situation where a magistrate judge met with a corporate representative via ex parte communication after receiving emails expressing frustration over case delays. One email mentioned the corporate representative's connections with Texas politicians, including potential support for the judge's promotion to a district court position. The article critiques the ethical implications of such interactions, suggesting they could imply the judge is motivated by personal ambition rather than impartiality. It references a concept called 'the audition trap,' where judges face accusations of writing decisions to advance their careers rather than based on legal merit. The piece highlights the difficulty judges face in proving their integrity when questioned about potential conflicts of interest.
The Rebirth of History and the Last Man
Francis Fukuyama, a former RAND Corporation analyst and State Department bureaucrat, gained prominence with his 1989 essay 'The End of History?' which posited that liberal democracy might represent the final form of human government. His new memoir, 'In the Realm of the Last Man,' traces his intellectual journey from his early work on the Soviet Union to his later critiques of U.S. foreign policy, including his disagreement with neoconservatives over the Iraq War. The book reflects on his engagement with classical philosophy, particularly the influence of philosopher Alexandre Kojève and Plato's tripartite model of the human soul. Fukuyama argues that historical progress is driven by 'thymos', the desire for honor and recognition, and that liberal democracies achieve 'the end of history' by universally recognizing human dignity. The piece concludes with the author expressing reservations about fully embracing this conclusion.
The Midterm Sprint Gets The Full Kamala Treatment With A ‘Powerful’ Pep Talk
Former Vice President Kamala Harris launched a Democratic voter mobilization campaign ahead of the midterm elections, emphasizing the importance of feeling empowered to influence outcomes. Speaking at a get-out-the-vote event with 29 days remaining until Election Day, Harris urged Democrats to engage in door-knocking and outreach efforts to turn out voters. She criticized President Trump's administration as 'callous, corrupt, and incompetent,' linking current challenges such as high gas prices and grocery costs to broader national issues. Harris also accused Trump of being a 'tyrant' and claimed the Founding Fathers anticipated scenarios involving executive overreach. While acknowledging the difficulty of relying on the Supreme Court, she emphasized the potential for voters to reshape congressional control through the midterms. Her remarks focused on collective action and the belief that citizens possess significant power to effect change.
A SCOTUS Petition Argues That Pot Growers, Like Pot Smokers, Cannot Be Categorically Disarmed
Joseph Johnson, a Colorado resident convicted of unauthorized marijuana cultivation in 2015, received probation but later faced federal charges under 18 USC 922(g)(1) due to his felony record, resulting in a 2025 federal prison sentence. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit upheld his conviction, rejecting his claim that it violated the Second Amendment. Johnson is now seeking Supreme Court review to challenge the application of Section 922(g)(1), arguing that nonviolent felons should not be categorically disarmed. This follows the Supreme Court's 2025 ruling in United States v. Hemani, where the Court struck down a similar law against cannabis users. Lower courts remain divided on whether the Second Amendment limits prosecutions under Section 922(g)(1), with some circuits allowing as-applied challenges while others block them. The 10th Circuit previously rejected such challenges in Vincent v. Bondi, involving a nonviolent felony conviction for check fraud.
The Bond Market Doesn't Trust the Treasury
The article discusses the recent surge in ten-year interest rates, which have risen from approximately 4.5% in July to nearly 5.3%. It argues that while inflation and deficits are often cited as causes, they are not the primary factors driving the increase. Instead, the author attributes the rise to a 'crisis of credibility' involving Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Federal Reserve Chairman Kevin Warsh, and President Donald Trump. The piece references historical context, such as the 1994 'bond vigilantes' episode, and contrasts current economic conditions with past periods of high deficits, suggesting that credible fiscal management could lead to lower interest rates.
Who Will Own the Moon?
The article discusses the shift from government-led space exploration to a commercial industry, highlighting the importance of property rights in space development. It critiques the U.S. government's approach to returning to the moon, comparing it to past failures like the Apollo program. The author argues that private enterprise, driven by profit motives, is crucial for sustainable space development. The piece references Rainer Zitelmann's book 'New Space Capitalism' and draws parallels between historical territorial expansions and potential lunar settlements, emphasizing the economic benefits of formal property rights. It also mentions Hernando de Soto's work on the significance of legal title in economic growth.
Whistleblower Frances Haugen Trashes Facebook's Flawed Fact-Checkers
Frances Haugen, a former Facebook employee and whistleblower, discusses her criticisms of Facebook's content moderation practices in an interview with Robby Soave. She highlights that the core issue with social media platforms like Facebook lies not just in harmful content but in their design choices that prioritize virality and user engagement. Haugen advocates for design changes that could mitigate harm without resorting to censorship. She raises concerns about children’s safety, foreign interference, and the spread of political misinformation, while opposing broad restrictions on social media access for minors. The discussion also touches on free speech, parental responsibility, and legal protections such as Section 230. Haugen concludes by emphasizing the need for greater transparency in how platforms rank and recommend content.
My New Lawfare Article on Why "The President Doesn't Have Unlimited Power to Impose Import Bans"
The article argues that the U.S. president does not have unlimited power to impose import bans, challenging claims made by former President Donald Trump. It references Trump's attempt to use Section 338 of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 to ban Canadian imports and impose tariffs, which sparked concerns about expanded executive authority. The author highlights the Supreme Court's ruling in 'Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump,' which invalidated Trump's broad tariff measures under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The piece asserts that import restrictions are primarily a congressional power, not an executive one, and warns against granting the president unchecked authority under the major questions doctrine. The author emphasizes that while some statutes delegate limited import control powers to the president, they do not provide a 'blank check' for sweeping bans.