Editing Cato Institute (section)

== Positions ==
The Cato Institute advocates policies that advance "individual [[liberty]], [[limited government]], [[free markets]], and [[peace]]". They are libertarian in their policy positions, typically advocating diminished government intervention in domestic, social, and economic policies and decreased military and political intervention worldwide. Cato was cited by columnist [[Ezra Klein]] as nonpartisan, saying that it is "the foremost advocate for small-government principles in American life" and it "advocates those principles when Democrats are in power, and when Republicans are in power";<ref>{{cite news|last=Klein|first=Ezra|title=Why Do the Kochs Want to Kill the Cato Institute?|publisher=Bloomberg L.P.|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-08/why-do-the-kochs-want-to-kill-the-cato-institute-ezra-klein.html|date=March 7, 2012|access-date=July 12, 2012|archive-date=July 10, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120710132132/http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-08/why-do-the-kochs-want-to-kill-the-cato-institute-ezra-klein.html|url-status=live}}</ref> and [[Eric Lichtblau]] called Cato "one of the country's most widely cited research organizations."<ref name=Lichtblau /> Nina Eastman reported in 1995 that "on any given day, House Majority Whip [[Tom DeLay]] of Texas might be visiting for lunch. Or Cato staffers might be plotting strategy with House Majority Leader [[Dick Armey]], another Texan, and his staff."<ref>{{cite news|last=Easton|first=Nina J.|title=Making America Work : RED WHITE AND SMALL : Ed Crane's Cato Institute Is a Think Tank That Believes the Country Would Work Better if There Was Less Government|publisher=Los Angeles Times.|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-07-09-tm-21827-story.html|date=July 9, 1995|access-date=November 9, 2017|archive-date=March 10, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200310135755/http://articles.latimes.com/print/1995-07-09/magazine/tm-21827_1_ed-crane|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Defense and foreign policy ===
Cato's [[Non-interventionism|non-interventionist]] foreign policy views, and strong support for civil liberties, have frequently led Cato scholars to criticize those in power, both Republican and Democratic. Cato scholars opposed President [[George H. W. Bush]]'s 1991 [[Gulf War]] operations (a position which caused the organization to lose nearly $1 million in funding),<ref name="Doherty">{{cite book |last=Doherty |first=Brian |author-link=Brian Doherty (journalist) |title=Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement |publisher=PublicAffairs |year=2007 |isbn=978-1-58648-350-0 |location=New York |pages=741 |oclc=76141517}}</ref>{{rp|page=454}} President [[Bill Clinton]]'s interventions in [[Operation Uphold Democracy|Haiti]] and [[1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia|Kosovo]], President George W. Bush's [[2003 invasion of Iraq]], and President Barack Obama's [[2011 military intervention in Libya]].<ref name="cat"/> As a response to the [[September 11 attacks]], Cato scholars supported the [[War in Afghanistan (2001–present)|removal of al Qaeda and the Taliban regime from power]], but are against an indefinite and open-ended military occupation of Afghanistan.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10533 |title=Escaping the 'Graveyard of Empires': A Strategy to Exit Afghanistan |author=Malou Innocent and Ted Galen Carpenter |date=September 14, 2009 |publisher=Cato Institute |access-date=November 20, 2010 |archive-date=November 22, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101122023141/http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10533 |url-status=live }}</ref> Cato scholars criticized U.S. involvement in [[Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen]].<ref name="cat">{{cite web | url=https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gops-foreign-policy-goes-bad-ugly-marco-rubio-pushes-intervention-fun-profit | title=GOP's Foreign Policy Goes from Bad to Ugly as Marco Rubio Pushes Intervention for Fun and Profit | last=Bandow | first=Doug | date=12 August 2015 | website=Cato Institute | access-date=6 February 2020 | archive-date=November 7, 2017 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171107061139/https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gops-foreign-policy-goes-bad-ugly-marco-rubio-pushes-intervention-fun-profit | url-status=live }}</ref>

Ted Galen Carpenter, Cato's vice president for defense and foreign policy studies, criticized many of the arguments offered to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. One of the war's earliest critics, Carpenter wrote in January 2002: "Ousting Saddam would make Washington responsible for Iraq's political future and entangle the United States in an endless nation-building mission beset by intractable problems."<ref name="cato.org">{{cite web |url=http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3369 |title=Overthrow Saddam? Be Careful What You Wish For |first=Ted Galen |last=Carpenter |publisher=Cato Institute |access-date=November 20, 2010 |archive-date=January 14, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120114121203/http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3369 |url-status=live }}</ref> Carpenter also predicted: "Most notably there is the issue posed by two persistent regional secession movements: the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south."<ref name="cato.org"/> But in 2002 Carpenter wrote, "the United States should not shrink from confronting al-Qaeda in its Pakistani lair,"<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-28-02.html|title=Take the War on Terrorism to Pakistan|first=Ted Galen|last=Carpenter|publisher=Cato Institute|access-date=November 9, 2017|url-status=bot: unknown|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20020601233726/http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-28-02.html|archive-date=June 1, 2002|df=mdy-all}}</ref> a position echoed in the institute's policy recommendations for the 108th Congress.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.thenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/hb108-51.pdf |title=Waging an Effective War |first=Charles V. |last=Peña |work=Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy Recommendations for the 108th Congress |page=53 |access-date=November 9, 2017 |archive-date=April 12, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190412122938/https://www.thenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/hb108-51.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> Cato's director of foreign policy studies, Christopher Preble, argues in ''The Power Problem: How American Military Dominance Makes Us Less Safe, Less Prosperous, and Less Free'', that America's position as an unrivaled superpower tempts policymakers to constantly overreach and to redefine ever more broadly the "national interest".<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/01/AR2009050101830.html | newspaper=The Washington Post | title=The Big Idea – The Power Problem | first=Carlos | last=Lozada | date=May 3, 2009 | access-date=April 28, 2010 | archive-date=November 11, 2012 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121111122752/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/01/AR2009050101830.html | url-status=live }}</ref>

Christopher Preble has said that the "scare campaign" to protect military spending from cuts under the [[Budget Control Act of 2011]] has backfired.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://breakingdefense.com/2012/12/defense-execs-say-deeper-dod-budget-cuts-higher-taxes-ok/|title=Defense Execs Say Deeper DoD Budget Cuts, Higher Taxes OK|work=breakingdefense.com|date=December 3, 2012|access-date=September 6, 2016|archive-date=October 11, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161011105750/http://breakingdefense.com/2012/12/defense-execs-say-deeper-dod-budget-cuts-higher-taxes-ok/|url-status=live}}</ref>

Cato's foreign and defense policies are guided by the view that the United States is relatively secure and so should engage the world, trade freely, and work with other countries on common concerns—but avoid trying to dominate it militarily. As a result, Cato advocates the United States should be an example of democracy and human rights, not their armed vindicator abroad, claiming it has a rich history, from [[George Washington]] to [[Cold War]] realists like [[George Kennan]]. Cato scholars aim to restore this view, with a principled and restrained foreign policy recommendation, to keep the nation out of most foreign conflicts and be cheaper, more ethical, and less destructive of civil liberties.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cato.org/defense-foreign-policy|title=Cato on Defense and Foreign Policy at a Glance|work=cato.org|access-date=October 13, 2021}}</ref>{{Third-party inline|date=July 2024}}

===Domestic policies===
Cato scholars have consistently called for the privatization of many government services and institutions,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/privatize-almost-everything|title=Privatize Almost Everything|date=April 30, 2013|work=cato.org|access-date=February 15, 2016|archive-date=February 22, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160222122014/http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/privatize-almost-everything|url-status=live}}</ref> including [[NASA]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-privatize-nasa|title=Time to Privatize NASA|date=January 26, 1998|work=cato.org|access-date=February 15, 2016|archive-date=November 23, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181123053940/https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-privatize-nasa|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Social Security (United States)|Social Security]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/publications/social-security-choice-paper/privatizing-social-security-big-boost-poor|title=Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor|date=July 26, 1996|work=cato.org|access-date=February 15, 2016|archive-date=November 20, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181120031741/https://www.cato.org/publications/social-security-choice-paper/privatizing-social-security-big-boost-poor|url-status=live}}</ref> the [[United States Postal Service]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/postal-service-privatization|title=Postal Service Privatization|date=April 30, 1996|work=cato.org|access-date=February 15, 2016|archive-date=February 22, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160222171553/http://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/postal-service-privatization|url-status=live}}</ref> the [[Transportation Security Administration]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/blog/after-another-failure-time-privatize-tsa|title=After Another Failure, Time to Privatize TSA|date=June 2, 2015|work=cato.org|access-date=February 15, 2016|archive-date=November 7, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171107060430/https://www.cato.org/blog/after-another-failure-time-privatize-tsa|url-status=live}}</ref> [[public schooling]], [[public transportation]] systems,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/fixing-transit-case-privatization|title=Fixing Transit: The Case for Privatization|date=November 10, 2010|work=cato.org|access-date=February 15, 2016|archive-date=December 9, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191209141747/https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/fixing-transit-case-privatization|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/privatize-faa|title=Privatize the FAA!|date=April 24, 2013|work=cato.org|access-date=February 15, 2016|archive-date=August 2, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190802143452/https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/privatize-faa|url-status=live}}</ref> and [[public broadcasting]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/top-ten-reasons-privatize-public-broadcasting|title=Top Ten Reasons to Privatize Public Broadcasting|date=July 25, 2005|work=cato.org|access-date=February 15, 2016|archive-date=November 5, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181105191142/https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/top-ten-reasons-privatize-public-broadcasting|url-status=live}}</ref> The institute opposes [[minimum wage]] laws, saying that they violate the freedom of contract and thus private property rights, and increase unemployment.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/minimum-wage-cruelest-those-who-cant-find-job|title=The Minimum Wage Is Cruelest to Those Who Can't Find a Job|date=July 22, 2013|work=cato.org|access-date=February 15, 2016|archive-date=February 12, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160212055146/http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/minimum-wage-cruelest-those-who-cant-find-job|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>William Niskanen, [http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/06/14/house-faces-the-dumbest-bill-of-the-year-so-far-a-210-increase-in-the-minimum-wage/ "House Faces the Dumbest Bill of the Year (So Far): A $2.10 Increase in the Minimum Wage"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071031065456/http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/06/14/house-faces-the-dumbest-bill-of-the-year-so-far-a-210-increase-in-the-minimum-wage/ |date=October 31, 2007 }}, ''Cato@Liberty'', June 14, 2006</ref> 

The institute is opposed to expanding [[overtime]] regulations, arguing that it will benefit some employees in the short term, while costing jobs or lowering wages of others, and have no meaningful long-term impact.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/blog/overtime-regulation-feel-good-economics|title=Overtime Regulation|date=July 2, 2015|work=cato.org|access-date=February 16, 2016|archive-date=March 31, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160331074710/http://www.cato.org/blog/overtime-regulation-feel-good-economics|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/blog/obamas-overtime-edict-anything-free-lunch|title=Obama's Overtime Edict: Anything But a Free Lunch|date=March 13, 2014|work=cato.org|access-date=February 16, 2016|archive-date=February 23, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160223093241/http://www.cato.org/blog/obamas-overtime-edict-anything-free-lunch|url-status=live}}</ref> It opposes [[child labor]] prohibitions,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/case-against-child-labor-prohibitions|title=A Case against Child Labor Prohibitions|date=July 29, 2014|work=cato.org|access-date=February 16, 2016|archive-date=February 11, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160211213812/http://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/case-against-child-labor-prohibitions|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/child-labor-or-child-prostitution|title=Child Labor or Child Prostitution?|date=October 8, 2002|work=cato.org|access-date=February 16, 2016|archive-date=February 8, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160208180420/http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/child-labor-or-child-prostitution|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/blog/bans-child-labor|title=Bans on Child Labor|date=November 18, 2013|work=cato.org|access-date=February 16, 2016|archive-date=February 23, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160223041018/http://www.cato.org/blog/bans-child-labor|url-status=live}}</ref> opposes public sector [[trade union|unions]], and supports [[right-to-work law]]s.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/blog/labor-unions-against-public-interest|title=Labor Unions Against the Public Interest|date=July 2, 2013|work=cato.org|access-date=February 15, 2016|archive-date=February 22, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160222155948/http://www.cato.org/blog/labor-unions-against-public-interest|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Vedder |first1=Richard |title=171 Right-to-Work Laws: Liberty, Prosperity, and Quality of Life |url=https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2010/1/cj30n1-9.pdf |publisher=Cato Institute |access-date=9 March 2019 |archive-date=April 12, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190412122943/https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2010/1/cj30n1-9.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> It opposes [[universal health care]], arguing that it is harmful to patients and an intrusion onto individual liberty.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/research/universal-health-care|title=Universal Health Care|work=cato.org|access-date=February 15, 2016|archive-date=December 9, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191209031905/https://www.cato.org/research/universal-health-care|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/universal-health-care-not-best-option|title=Universal Health Care Not Best Option|date=February 23, 2009|work=cato.org|access-date=February 15, 2016|archive-date=December 25, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181225151858/https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/universal-health-care-not-best-option|url-status=live}}</ref> It is against [[affirmative action]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3722 |title=The Affirmative Action Myth |first=Marie |last=Gryphon |publisher=Cato Institute |access-date=November 20, 2010 |archive-date=November 23, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101123173511/http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3722 |url-status=live }}</ref> It has also called for total abolition of the [[welfare state]], and has argued that it should be replaced with reduced business regulations to create more jobs, and argues that private charities are fully capable of replacing it.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/blog/welfare-private-charity|title=Welfare and Private Charity|date=April 13, 2012|work=cato.org|access-date=February 15, 2016|archive-date=February 22, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160222171717/http://www.cato.org/blog/welfare-private-charity|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/welfare-state-needs-abolition-not-reform|title=The Welfare State Needs Abolition, Not "Reform"|date=May 5, 2015|work=cato.org|access-date=February 15, 2016|archive-date=February 22, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160222171605/http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/welfare-state-needs-abolition-not-reform|url-status=live}}</ref> Cato has also opposed antitrust laws.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/case-against-antitrust|title=The Case Against Antitrust|date=November 17, 2004|work=cato.org|access-date=May 16, 2016|archive-date=December 29, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191229080357/https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/case-against-antitrust|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/its-time-reexamine-antitrust-legislation|title=It's Time To Reexamine Antitrust Legislation|date=November 13, 1997|work=cato.org|access-date=May 16, 2016|archive-date=September 24, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170924140508/https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/its-time-reexamine-antitrust-legislation|url-status=live}}</ref>

Cato is an opponent of [[Campaign finance reform in the United States|campaign finance reform]], arguing that government is the ultimate form of potential corruption and that such laws undermine democracy by undermining competitive elections. Cato also supports the repeal of the [[Federal Election Campaign Act]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-campaign-finance-reform-never-works|title=Why Campaign Finance Reform Never Works|date=March 20, 1997|work=cato.org|access-date=February 16, 2016|archive-date=October 7, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161007235145/http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-campaign-finance-reform-never-works|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/research/campaign-finance|title=Campaign Finance|work=cato.org|access-date=February 16, 2016|archive-date=December 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181210194023/https://www.cato.org/research/campaign-finance|url-status=live}}</ref>

Cato is a fierce foe of the [[war on drugs]], arguing that consenting adults have the right to put any substance they wish to in their bodies and that drug prohibition drives [[Incarceration in the United States|mass incarceration]] while fueling violent competition between gangs and failing to prevent drug abuse.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Burrus |first=Trevor |title=The War on Drugs |url=https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policymakers-9th-edition-2022/war-drugs |access-date=August 28, 2024 |website=Cato Institute}}</ref>

Cato has published numerous studies criticizing what it calls "[[corporate welfare]]", the practice of public officials funneling taxpayer money, usually via targeted budgetary spending, to politically connected corporate interests.<ref>James Bovard, [http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html "Archer Daniels Midland: A Case Study In Corporate Welfare"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070711092430/http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html|date=July 11, 2007}}, ''Policy Analysis'' no. 241, September 26, 1995</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Moore |first1=Stephen |last2=Stansel |first2=Dean |date=12 May 1995 |title=Ending Corporate Welfare as We Know It |url=https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa225.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161023114508/http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa225.html |archive-date=October 23, 2016 |access-date=25 May 2021 |website=Cato Institute}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Slivinski |first=Stephen |date=10 October 2001 |title=The Corporate Welfare Budget: Bigger Than Ever |url=https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/corporate-welfare-budget-bigger-ever |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210525135912/https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/corporate-welfare-budget-bigger-ever |archive-date=May 25, 2021 |access-date=25 May 2021 |website=Cato Institute}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Slivinski |first=Stephen |date=14 May 2007 |title=The Corporate Welfare State: How the Federal Government Subsidizes U.S. Businesses |url=https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/corporate-welfare-state-how-federal-government-subsidizes-us-businesses |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210525135913/https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/corporate-welfare-state-how-federal-government-subsidizes-us-businesses |archive-date=May 25, 2021 |access-date=25 May 2021 |website=Cato Institute}}</ref>

Cato has published strong criticisms of the [[Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement|1998 settlement]] which many U.S. states signed with the [[tobacco industry]].<ref>Thomas C. O'Brien, [http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-371es.html "Constitutional and Antitrust Violations of the Multistate Tobacco Settlement"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20031203065542/http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-371es.html |date=December 3, 2003 }}, ''Policy Analysis'' no. 371, Cato Institute, May 18, 2000</ref>

Cato president Ed Crane and [[Sierra Club]] executive director [[Carl Pope (environmentalist)|Carl Pope]] co-wrote a 2002 [[op-ed]] piece in ''[[The Washington Post]]'' calling for the abandonment of the Republican energy bill, arguing that it had become little more than a gravy train for Washington, D.C., lobbyists.<ref>{{cite news |last=Pope |first=Carl |author2=Crane, Ed |date=July 30, 2002 |title=Fueled by Pork |url=https://www.proquest.com/docview/409300838 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170317104245/http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/doc/409300838.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Jul+30,+2002&author=Carl+Pope+and+Ed+Crane&desc=Fueled+by+Pork |archive-date=March 17, 2017 |access-date=August 21, 2013 |newspaper=The Washington Post |page=A.17|id={{ProQuest|409300838}} }}{{Subscription required}}. [http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4090 Cato's link] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071116112152/http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4090|date=November 16, 2007}}</ref> Again in 2005, Cato scholar Jerry Taylor teamed up with Daniel Becker of the Sierra Club to attack the Republican [[Energy Policy Act of 2005|Energy Bill]] as a give-away to corporate interests.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Taylor |first1=Jerry |last2=Becker |first2=Daniel |date=30 July 2005 |title=Energy Bill Blues |url=https://www.cato.org/commentary/energy-bill-blues |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210525135912/https://www.cato.org/commentary/energy-bill-blues |archive-date=May 25, 2021 |access-date=25 May 2021 |website=Cato Institute}}</ref>

In 2003, Cato filed an [[Amicus curiae|amicus brief]] in support of the Supreme Court's decision in ''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'', which struck down the remaining state laws that made private, non-commercial homosexual relations between consenting adults illegal. Cato cited the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|14th Amendment]], among other things, as the source of their support for the ruling. The amicus brief was cited in Justice Kennedy's majority opinion for the Court.<ref>{{cite web |title=539 U.S. 558 LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS No. 02-102. Supreme Court of United |url=http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/539/539.US.558.02-102.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101031091144/http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/539/539.US.558.02-102.html |archive-date=October 31, 2010 |access-date=November 20, 2010 |publisher=bulk.resource.org |df=mdy-all}}</ref> 

In 2004, Cato scholar Daniel Griswold wrote in support of President George W. Bush's failed proposal to grant temporary work visas to otherwise undocumented laborers which would have granted limited residency for the purpose of employment in the U.S.<ref name="reason" />

In 2004, the institute published a paper arguing in favor of "drug reimportation".<ref>{{cite web |last=Pilon |first=Roger |date=4 August 2004 |title=Drug Reimportation: The Free Market Solution |url=https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/drug-reimportation-free-market-solution-0 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210525134921/https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/drug-reimportation-free-market-solution-0 |archive-date=May 25, 2021 |access-date=25 May 2021 |website=Cato Institute}}</ref>

In 2006, the Cato Institute published a study proposing a Balanced Budget [[Veto#United States|Veto]] [[United States Constitution#Amendments|Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]].<ref>Anthony Hawks, [http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1346 "The Balanced Budget Veto: A New Mechanism to Limit Federal Spending"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060622192900/http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1346 |date=June 22, 2006 }}, ''Policy Analysis'' no. 487, Cato Institute, September 4, 2003</ref>

In 2006, Cato published a Policy Analysis criticising the [[Federal Marriage Amendment]] as unnecessary, anti-federalist, and anti-democratic.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6379 |title=The Federal Marriage Amendment: Unnecessary, Anti-Federalist, and Anti-Democratic |first=Dale |last=Carpenter |date=June 1, 2006 |publisher=Cato Institute |access-date=November 20, 2010 |archive-date=November 22, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101122182237/http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6379 |url-status=live }}</ref> The amendment would have changed the United States Constitution to prohibit [[same-sex marriage]]; the amendment failed in both houses of Congress.

A 2006 Cato report by [[Radley Balko]] strongly criticized U.S. drug policy and the perceived growing militarization of U.S. law enforcement.<ref>{{cite web |first=Radley |last=Balko |url=http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6476 |title=Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America |publisher=Cato Institute |date=July 17, 2006 |access-date=September 28, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100409110428/http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6476 |archive-date=April 9, 2010 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

A 2006 study criticized the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]].<ref>Gigi Sohn, [http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/166 "A Welcome Voice on the Right"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070511001717/http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/166|date=May 11, 2007}}, Public Knowledge, March 21, 2006</ref>

Cato supports same-sex marriage and filed an ''amicus'' brief in the case of ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'' supporting a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Shapiro |first1=Ilya |last2=Pilon |first2=Roger |last3=Eskridge |first3=William |last4=Burrus |first4=Trevor |date=March 6, 2015 |title=Obergefell v. Hodges |url=https://www.cato.org/legal-briefs/obergefell-v-hodges |access-date=Aug 28, 2024 |website=Cato Institute}}</ref>

Cato does not formally oppose [[capital punishment]]; however, they have frequently criticized the practice.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Follett |first=Chelsea |date=July 29, 2019 |title=Despite Federal Return, Capital Punishment Is Dying Out |url=https://www.cato.org/blog/despite-federal-return-capital-punishment-dying-out |access-date=Aug 28, 2024 |website=Cato Institute}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Meany |first=Paul |date=January 15, 2020 |title=Cesare Beccaria was a trailblazer on capital punishment |url=https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/cesare-beccaria-trail-blazer-capital-punishment |access-date=Aug 28, 2024 |website=Libertarianism.org}}</ref>

===Environmental policy===
Cato scholars have written about the issues of the environment, including global warming, environmental regulation, and energy policy. According to social scientists Riley Dunlap and Aaron McCright the Cato Institute is one of the "particularly crucial elements of the denial machine", that [[climate change denial|rejects global warming]].<ref>Riley E. Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=RsYr_iQUs6QC&dq=cato+institute+denial&pg=PA144 Organized Climate Change Denial]'', in: John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, David Schlosberg (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press 2011, p. 144–160, here p. 149</ref>

[[PolitiFact.com]] and ''[[Scientific American]]'' have called Cato's work on global warming "false" and based on "[[cherrypicking|data selection]]".<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2009/apr/01/cato-institute/cato-institutes-claim-global-warming-disputed-most/ | title=Cato Institutes claim on global warming disputed by most experts | last=Farley | first=Robert | date=1 April 2009 | website=Politifact | access-date=6 February 2020 | archive-date=February 6, 2020 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200206154411/https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2009/apr/01/cato-institute/cato-institutes-claim-global-warming-disputed-most/ | url-status=live }}</ref><ref>Cato was criticized for publishing an alleged misleading ''Addendum: Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States''. See: {{cite journal|last=Fischer|first=Douglas|author2=The Daily Climate|title=Fake Addendum by Contrarian Group Tries to Undo U.S. Government Climate Report|journal=Scientific American|date=October 22, 2012|url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fake-addendum-by-contrari/|access-date=February 5, 2018|archive-date=March 6, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180306142529/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fake-addendum-by-contrari/|url-status=live}}</ref>  A December 2003 Cato panel included [[Patrick Michaels]], [[Robert Balling]] and [[John Christy]].{{citation needed|date=August 2016}} Michaels, Balling and Christy agreed that global warming is related at least some degree to [[Human impact on the environment|human activity]] but that many scientists and the media have overstated the danger.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Patrick Michaels: Decades of Denial – Climate Investigations Center |url=https://climateinvestigations.org/patrick-michaels/ |access-date=2022-12-23 |website=climateinvestigations.org}}</ref>{{citation needed|date=August 2016}} The Cato Institute has also criticized political attempts to stop global warming as expensive and ineffective.<ref name="Michaels" />

Cato scholars have been critical of the [[Presidency of George W. Bush|Bush administration]]'s views on energy policy. In 2003, Cato scholars Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren said the Republican Energy Bill was "hundreds of pages of corporate welfare, symbolic gestures, empty promises, and pork-barrel projects".<ref>{{cite magazine |url=http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/taylor-vandoren200311190857.asp |title=Mighty Porking Power Rangers: Scanning the energy bill |first=Jerry |last=Taylor |author2=Peter Van Doren |magazine=National Review Online |date=November 19, 2003 |access-date=May 27, 2008 |archive-date=November 12, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071112000604/http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/taylor-vandoren200311190857.asp |url-status=live }}</ref> They also spoke out against the former president's calls for larger ethanol subsidies.<ref>{{cite news |work=Chicago Sun-Times |url=http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7308 |title=Ethanol Makes Gasoline Costlier, Dirtier |first=Jerry |last=Taylor |author2=Peter Van Doren |date=January 27, 2007 |access-date=January 31, 2008 |archive-date=February 13, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080213153039/http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7308 |url-status=live }}</ref>

With regard to the [[Takings Clause#Eminent domain|"Takings Clause"]] of the United States Constitution and environmental protection, libertarians associated with Cato contended in 2003 that the Constitution is not adequate to guarantee the protection of private property rights.<ref>{{cite book|last=Ball|first=Terence|title=Environmental Encyclopedia|year=2003|publisher=Gale|chapter-url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3404801486.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150402151435/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3404801486.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=April 2, 2015|access-date=August 18, 2013 |chapter=Takings}}</ref>

In 2019, Cato closed its "Center for the Study of Science", which [[Environment & Energy Publishing|E&E News]] characterized as "a program that for years sought to raise uncertainty about climate science" after its head Pat Michaels had left the institute over disagreements, along with his collaborator Ryan Maue, a meteorologist.<ref name="Waldman-2020">{{Cite web|last=Waldman|first=Scott|date=2020-05-29|title=Cato closes its climate shop; Pat Michaels is out|url=https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060419123|access-date=2020-07-28|website=[[Environment & Energy Publishing|E&E News]]|language=en|archive-date=August 15, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190815174415/https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060419123|url-status=live}}</ref> By that time, the Cato Institute was also no longer affiliated with its former distinguished fellow [[Richard Lindzen]], another [[climate change denial|denier of]] the [[scientific consensus on climate change]].<ref name="Waldman-2020" />

===Global freedom===
Cato's scholars seek to advance policies and support institutions in developing and developed countries that protect human rights and extend the range of personal choices. In particular, Cato's research explores the central role that freedom in its various dimensions—economic, civil, and personal—plays in human progress and in solving some of the world's most pressing problems, including global poverty. To this end Cato co-publishes the annual ''[[Human Freedom Index]]'' (2015–)<ref name="Human Freedom Index"/> with the [[Fraser Institute]] and is the co-publisher with Fraser of the U.S. edition of the ''[[Economic Freedom of the World]]'' annual report (1996–).<ref name="Economic Freedom"/>

===Immigration===
Cato argues that most Americans are immigrants or descended from immigrants who sought opportunity and freedom on American shores, and they believe that this continues today with immigrants continuing to become Americans, making the United States a wealthier, freer, and safer country. Cato's research indicates that the current US immigration system excludes the most peaceful and healthy immigrants, and urges policymakers to expand and deregulate legal immigration.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cato.org/immigration|title=Cato on Immigration|work=cato.org|access-date=October 13, 2021}}</ref> Further, Cato supports [[open borders]].<ref>{{cite web|title=Forget the Wall Already, It's Time for the U.S. to Have Open Borders|url=https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/forget-wall-already-its-time-us-have-open-borders}}</ref>

===Presidential administrations===
Cato scholars were critical of [[George W. Bush]]'s [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] administration (2001–2009) on several issues, including education,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cato.org/store/books/feds-classroom-how-big-government-corrupts-cripples-compromises-american-education-paperback |title=Feds in the Classroom |first=Neal |last=McCluskey |publisher=Cato Institute |access-date=December 16, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121211064446/http://www.cato.org/store/books/feds-classroom-how-big-government-corrupts-cripples-compromises-american-education-paperback |archive-date=December 11, 2012 |url-status=dead }}</ref> and excessive [[government spending]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/ |title=Downsizing the Federal Government |access-date=December 16, 2010 |archive-date=January 5, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200105235031/https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/ |url-status=live }}</ref> On other issues, they supported Bush administration initiatives, most notably health care,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa650.pdf |title=Yes, Mr. President, A Free Market Can Fix Health Care |first=Michael F |last=Cannon |date=October 21, 2009 |publisher=Cato Institute |access-date=November 20, 2010 |archive-date=November 15, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101115233552/http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa650.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> [[Social Security (United States)|Social Security]],<ref>{{cite news |first=Mike |last=Allen |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29418-2005Jan22.html |title=Semantics Shape Social Security Debate: Democrats Assail 'Crisis' While GOP Gives 'Privatization' a 'Personal' Twist |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |date=January 23, 2005 |page=A04 |access-date=August 25, 2017 |archive-date=January 7, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180107165701/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29418-2005Jan22.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2943 |title=Cutting Corporate Welfare Could Fund a Bush Social Security Plan |first1=Andrew |last1=Biggs |first2=Maya |last2=Macguineas |publisher=CATO Institute |date=January 6, 2003 |access-date=October 25, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071117060325/http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2943 |archive-date=November 17, 2007 |url-status=dead }}</ref> [[global warming]],<ref name="Michaels">{{cite web |url=http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-45.pdf |title=Global Warming |first=Patrick J |last=Michaels |work=Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy Recommendations for the 108th Congress |page=474 |access-date=July 4, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120406104546/http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-45.pdf |archive-date=April 6, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> [[tax policy]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cato.org/publications/briefing-paper/show-me-money-dividend-payouts-after-bush-tax-cut |title=Show Me the Money! Dividend Payouts after the Bush Tax Cut |first1=Stephen |last1=Moore |first2=Phil |last2=Kerpen |publisher=Cato Institute |date=October 12, 2004 |access-date=July 4, 2012 |archive-date=June 9, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120609100742/http://www.cato.org/publications/briefing-paper/show-me-money-dividend-payouts-after-bush-tax-cut |url-status=live }}</ref> and [[Guest worker program|immigration]].<ref name="reason">{{cite web |first=Daniel |last=Griswold |url=http://reason.com/archives/2004/12/03/beyond-the-barbed-wire |title=Beyond the Barbed Wire: Bush won a mandate for immigration reform |publisher=Reason.com |date=December 3, 2004 |access-date=August 21, 2013 |archive-date=January 17, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190117175821/http://reason.com/archives/2004/12/03/beyond-the-barbed-wire |url-status=live }} [http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/immigration-beyond-barbed-wire Cato's link] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120609100528/http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/immigration-beyond-barbed-wire |date=June 9, 2012 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/america-needs-real-immigration-reform |title=America Needs Real Immigration Reform |first=Daniel |last=Griswold |publisher=Cato Institute |date=May 18, 2006 |access-date=July 4, 2012 |archive-date=June 9, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120609100758/http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/america-needs-real-immigration-reform |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/illegal-immigration-will-congress-finally-solve-it |title=Illegal Immigration: Will Congress Finally Solve It? |first=Daniel |last=Griswold |publisher=Cato Institute |access-date=July 4, 2012 |date=May 22, 2007 |archive-date=June 9, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120609100807/http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/illegal-immigration-will-congress-finally-solve-it |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/immigration-reform-must-include-temporary-worker-program |title=Immigration Reform Must Include a Temporary Worker Program |first=Daniel |last=Griswold |publisher=Cato Institute |access-date=July 4, 2012 |date=March 17, 2007 |archive-date=June 9, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120609100834/http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/immigration-reform-must-include-temporary-worker-program |url-status=live }}</ref>

During the [[2008 United States presidential election|2008 U.S. presidential election]], Cato scholars criticized both major-party candidates, [[John McCain]] and [[Barack Obama]].<ref>{{cite journal |last=Samples |first=John |title=McCain vs. Madison |journal=[[The American Spectator]] |date=January 15, 2008 |url=http://spectator.org/archives/2008/01/15/mccain-vs-madison |access-date=August 20, 2013 |publisher=The American Spectator Foundation |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130728044537/http://spectator.org/archives/2008/01/15/mccain-vs-madison |archive-date=July 28, 2013 |url-status=dead |df=mdy-all }} [http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/mccain-vs-madison/ Cato's link] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130507081220/http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/mccain-vs-madison |date=May 7, 2013 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Carpenter|first=Ted Galen|title=John McCain on Foreign Policy: Even Worse Than Bush|journal=Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture|url=http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2008/07/07/john-mccain-on-foreign-policy-even-worse-than-bush/|date=July 7, 2008|publisher=[[Rockford Institute]]|access-date=August 21, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120904145311/http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2008/07/07/john-mccain-on-foreign-policy-even-worse-than-bush/|archive-date=September 4, 2012|url-status=dead|df=mdy-all}} [http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/john-mccain-foreign-policy-even-worse-bush Cato's link] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121005174947/http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/john-mccain-foreign-policy-even-worse-bush |date=October 5, 2012 }}</ref>

Cato has criticized President Obama's stances on policy issues such as [[Stimulus (economic)|fiscal stimulus]],<ref>{{cite web|last=Mitchell|first=Dan|title=Obama's New Stimulus Schemes: Same Song, Umpteenth Verse|url=http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/obamas-new-stimulus-schemes-same-song-umpteenth-verse/|publisher=Cato @ Liberty|access-date=July 5, 2012|date=September 6, 2010|archive-date=August 1, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120801043109/http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/obamas-new-stimulus-schemes-same-song-umpteenth-verse/|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Health care reform in the United States|healthcare reform]],<ref>{{cite news|last=Healy|first=Gene|title=Obamacare is unconstitutional|url=http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/33274|access-date=August 20, 2013|newspaper=Washington Examiner|date=November 24, 2009|archive-date=March 14, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140314180627/http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/33274|url-status=live}}, [http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obamacare-is-unconstitutional Cato's link] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121113213639/http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obamacare-is-unconstitutional |date=November 13, 2012 }}</ref> [[Foreign policy of the United States|foreign policy]],<ref>{{cite web|title=Obama's War Without Policy in Libya|url=http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/obamas-war-without-policy-libya|access-date=July 5, 2012|date=March 25, 2011|archive-date=August 1, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120801224847/http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/obamas-war-without-policy-libya|url-status=live}}</ref> and drug-related matters,<ref name="WarOnDrugs">{{cite web|last=Hidalgo|first=Juan Carlos|title=Barack Obama: The Enthusiastic Drug Warrior|url=http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/president-obama-the-enthusiastic-drug-warrior/|access-date=July 5, 2012|date=November 7, 2011|archive-date=June 23, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120623082413/http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/president-obama-the-enthusiastic-drug-warrior/|url-status=live}}</ref> while supporting his stance on the repeal of [[Don't Ask, Don't Tell]]<ref name="DADT">{{cite web|last=Preble|first=Christopher|title=Obama Right on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"|url=http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/obama-right-on-dont-ask-dont-tell/|publisher=Cato@Liberty|access-date=July 12, 2012|date=March 25, 2010|archive-date=July 10, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110710062515/http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/obama-right-on-dont-ask-dont-tell/|url-status=live}}</ref> and his support for the [[DREAM Act]] (though not for his implementing its terms through executive action).<ref name="Immigration">{{cite web|last=Shapiro|first=Ilya|title=One Cheer for Obama's New Immigration Policy|url=http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/one-cheer-for-obamas-new-immigration-policy/|publisher=Cato@Liberty|access-date=July 12, 2012|date=June 19, 2012|archive-date=June 20, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120620093816/http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/one-cheer-for-obamas-new-immigration-policy/|url-status=live}}</ref>

Cato opposed [[Executive Order 13769]], which was enacted in January 2017, which decreased the number of refugees admitted into the United States and suspended entry to individuals whose countries do not meet adjudication standards under U.S. immigration law.<ref>{{Cite web |last= Greenwald |first= Glenn |author-link= Glenn Greenwald |date= January 28, 2017 |title= Trump's Muslim Ban Is Culmination of War on Terror Mentality but Still Uniquely Shameful |url= https://theintercept.com/2017/01/28/trumps-muslim-ban-is-culmination-of-war-on-terror-mentality-but-still-uniquely-shameful/ |website= [[The Intercept]] |access-date= January 31, 2017 |archive-date= June 27, 2017 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170627135554/https://theintercept.com/2017/01/28/trumps-muslim-ban-is-culmination-of-war-on-terror-mentality-but-still-uniquely-shameful/ |url-status= live }}</ref>

====Trade policy====
Cato advocates that policymakers must be constantly reminded of the benefits of free trade and the costs of protectionism, arguing free trade is the extension of free markets across political borders. It promotes the idea that enlarging markets to integrate more buyers, sellers, investors, and workers enables more refined specialization and economies of scale, which produce more wealth and higher living standards, and argues that Protectionism does the opposite. Cato's policy recommendations focus on congress and the administration pursuing policies that expand the freedom of Americans to participate in the international marketplace.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cato.org/trade-policy|title=Cato on Trade|work=cato.org|access-date=October 13, 2021}}</ref>