Economist Writing Every Day

Pushing beyond the despair and doomerism of “Nothing matters”, the question has never been is there a price for lying in politics, but rather what is the price of lying in politics. Note that “in politics” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. In day to day life, the price of lying is the threat to your reputation. A reputaton for being untrustworthy is always very costly in the long run. But politics, however, has different layers across which the price of lying is heterogeneous. And yes, there are contexts where that price can go negative.

Put simply, what is the cost here? Is Greg Bovino, head of US Border Patrol, worried about his reputation? Is he worried about future personal legal liability? Is he worried about maintaining cooperative alignment across the administration and within the ranks of the Border Patrol and ICE? There’s a saying in politics – the worst thing you can do is tell the truth at the wrong time. But that’s more relevant to “lying by omission”, about simply abstaining from speaking on a subject so that you are not forced to choose between lying and paying a high political cost. This is different. I’m picking on this one person in the administration because Alex Pretti was summarily executed in the street in cold blood by a thicket of federal agents for the apparent crime of being in attendance and trying to help a woman while she was being pepper sprayed, but it is the subsequent lying that I am concerned with here. It follows a pattern that continues to darkly fascinate me.

Q: "Was Alex Pretti armed when he was shot?"Bovino: "The investigation is going to uncover all those facts…I wasn't there wrestling that assaultive subject that was assaulting Border Patrol agents."

— The Bulwark (@thebulwark.com) 2026-01-25T19:35:37.806Z

Bovino: "When you choose to use your five-year-old child as a shield to evade law enforcement, that is a choice that someone makes…"

— The Bulwark (@thebulwark.com) 2026-01-25T19:21:48.924Z

Bovino shamelessly lies: "This looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement"

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-01-24T19:14:18.742Z

Rather than simply “say nothing”, this administration has committed to the broad tactic of stating things that are factually, obviously untrue. That, more important, it is highly likely they know are untrue. That’s not something we’ve seen a lot of before. Politicians were known for being “slick” and “slippery”. For bending the truth, torturing the facts, or managing to fill entire press conferences without saying or committing to anything of substance. This administration, as I’ve said before, is different.

I see two likely explanations:

1. The price of lying is zero because no one believes anything anymore. The truth is subjective and siloed.
2. The price of lying is negative because constant and consistent commitment to the party can only be demonstrated by bearing the personal cost of telling obvious lies. In doing so you maintain the group, save yourself from being purged, and everyone in the group lives to fight another day. The net of which is a negative price for lying.

So what is it? Are we through the lol-nothing-matters looking glass, or are we witnessing an administration circle the wagons and solidify their committment to one another by blatantly lying on national television? I’m (perhaps obviously) of the belief that everything matters, that lying does have a cost, but the need for unity is so strong within this administration and it is, in fact, the lying that is holding it together. Until, of course, it doesn’t. Remember the most important lesson of The Folk Theorem – you can sustain cooperation in the Prisoner’s Dilemma, but only until you learn when the game is going to end. Then all bets are off.