A ten-slide series on the fourth move in the playbook: one small step at a time, so the next one always feels normal. This page has the studies, the court records, and the reporting behind every card, with dates, links, and what each one cannot tell you, plus a reading check you can try yourself.
The full text of every card, in order, with the card itself under each one. Select a card to open it full size.
Grouped by card. Each source has a summary of what it says, a scope line saying how far it reaches, and a link to the original.
Seven studies with Harvard students. People judged dots as blue or not blue, faces as threatening or not, and research proposals as ethical or not. When blue dots, threatening faces, or unethical proposals became rare, people widened the category: purple dots became blue, neutral faces threatening, ambiguous proposals unethical. The shift held when people were warned it would happen and when they were paid to stay consistent, and it worked the same whether the change was gradual or sudden. When blue dots became more common, the category shrank.
Adults advised a partner about how much money was in a jar of pennies. When exaggerating helped the advisor, the exaggeration grew from trial to trial. In the 25 people scanned, the amygdala’s response to their own self-serving dishonesty faded over time, and the size of the fade predicted the size of the next increase.
Four experiments with a bribery game found the opposite of a slippery slope for serious corruption: people were more likely to take a large bribe when it was offered outright than after first taking small ones. The authors describe the route to corruption as “a steep cliff rather than a slippery slope.”
The classic small-step study. Homeowners first asked to do something small were far more likely to agree later to a very large “Drive Carefully” sign in their yard: 76.0% against 16.7% of those asked cold.
In 2.18 billion posts on Twitter, what people treated as remarkable weather was set by the weather of roughly 2 to 8 years earlier. The authors call it evidence of the “boiling frog” effect, as a metaphor.
The president announced a strike on a boat in the southern Caribbean, said 11 people were killed, and said the boat was operated by Tren de Aragua. AP noted the video did not show how many people were aboard or any clear drug stash. The next day Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Fox and Friends that “it won’t stop with just this strike.”
A notice to Congress said the president had determined that designated cartels are non-state armed groups whose actions amount to an armed attack, that “the United States is in a non-international armed conflict” with them, and that those killed are unlawful combatants. A White House spokesperson said the president “acted in line with the law of armed conflict.”
The AP timeline runs from the first strike to strikes in the Eastern Pacific from October 21, 2025; the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford ordered in on October 24 and arriving November 16, with about 12,000 troops in the region; an oil tanker seized December 10; a blockade of “sanctioned oil tankers” ordered December 16; and on January 3, 2026, a “large-scale strike” across Caracas and the capture of Nicolás Maduro. By then, AP counted 35 known boat strikes and at least 115 people killed, per the administration’s announcements.
After The Washington Post reported, citing anonymous sources, that a second strike killed two survivors of the first boat, the White House confirmed the second strike: “Secretary Hegseth authorized Adm. Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes,” and said the admiral acted within his authority and the law. The Pentagon called the Post’s account of the order “completely false.”
A strike on October 4, 2026 killed 4 people, bringing AP’s count to at least 235 people killed in 70 strikes since September 2025. Along the way the count was at least 37 (October 2025), 61 (late October), 95 (December), and 199 (May 2026). Congress voted down limits on the strikes by narrow margins, including a 50 to 50 Senate vote broken by the vice president in January 2026.
June 7, 2025: a memorandum federalized “at least 2,000” California Guard for 60 days over the governor’s objection; two days later came 2,000 more and about 700 Marines. August 11: the D.C. Guard was mobilized “until I determine that conditions of law and order have been restored,” and other states were invited to send troops. August 25: an executive order called for trained civil-disturbance units in every state’s Guard and a “standing National Guard quick reaction force.”
Guard troops were federalized for Portland (200) and Chicago (at least 300) in September and October 2025, with troops from California and Texas sent across state lines. Federal trial courts blocked both. On December 23, 2025, the Supreme Court, 6 to 3, declined to let the Chicago deployment go ahead while the case continued.
The president announced the Guard would leave Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland, adding that troops could return “perhaps in a much different and stronger form.” The withdrawals were completed in January 2026.
The Pentagon confirmed the D.C. deployment would continue to Inauguration Day 2029, with nearly 5,000 troops during the summer of 2026. In August the Pentagon estimated about $1.4 billion to keep an average of 2,500 there through January 2029. AP reported about 3,000 troops in October 2026.
The administration’s own phrase for the plan, “city by city,” was quoted by a federal court in the Illinois case. The link is the Supreme Court’s docket for that case, which includes the lower-court record.
In January 2025 Netflix raised its U.S. standard plan from $15.49 to $17.99 a month, telling shareholders “we will occasionally ask our members to pay a little more.” By 2026 the standard plan was $19.99, and the plan with ads had gone from $6.99 to $7.99 to $8.99.
A federal rule requiring the full price up front for live-event tickets and short-term lodging took effect on May 12, 2025. In April 2026 StubHub agreed to refund $10 million to settle FTC charges that it revealed fees across three screens at checkout.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics counts a smaller package at the same price as a price increase. GAO reviewed the research and found studies in which shoppers were about two to five times more responsive to a price increase than to an equal cut in package size.
A survey of 3,054 parents of children 12 and under, May 2025. Among parents of a child under 2, the share who say the child watches YouTube rose from 45% in 2020 to 62% in 2025. 29% of parents of 8- to 10-year-olds and roughly six in ten parents of 11- and 12-year-olds say the child has a smartphone.
A nationally representative survey of 1,578 parents, August 2024. Average daily screen time: 1 hour 3 minutes under age 2, 2 hours 8 minutes at ages 2 to 4, and 3 hours 28 minutes at 5 to 8. Forty percent of children have a tablet by age 2.
The advisory says exposure “often begins before a child’s first birthday and increases as children age.” Its section for families suggests limits that could be none under 18 months, under one hour a day under age 6, and two hours a day for ages 6 to 18.
The strongest studies of YouTube found little evidence that the recommendation algorithm pushes adult users step by step toward extreme content; most extreme viewing came from people who already sought it out.
Read the article below, then try the six questions. Each one uses a different reading skill from part two, in rough order of difficulty. Write your answer down before you open the strong answer.
Paragraph 10 says the majority treated tariff revenue as part of Congress’s “taxing power.” What does that mean here?
The Constitution gives the power to tax to Congress. The Court treated tariffs as a kind of tax, so a president needs authority from Congress to impose them.
Paragraphs 9 and 10
What was the vote in the case, and on what date was it decided?
6 to 3, on February 20, 2026.
Paragraph 2
In one or two sentences of your own, what did the Court decide, and what did it leave open?
The Court ruled that the 1977 emergency powers law does not let the president impose tariffs, which removes many of his broadest tariffs. It left open other tariff laws, what happens to deals built on the old tariffs, and whether companies get refunds.
Paragraphs 1, 2, 12 and 19
Paragraphs 12, 15 and 17 say the ruling does not reach Section 232 or Section 301, and that Section 232 needs a separate action for each industry. What would you expect to happen next?
Tariffs coming back piece by piece under other laws, one industry or one country at a time: a new series of steps rather than one big one. The article does not predict this; you have to put the paragraphs together. It is the move on this part’s cards.
Paragraphs 12, 15 and 17
According to paragraphs 7 and 8, how is the emergency powers law different from other tariff laws?
The emergency law allows things like embargoes and asset freezes but does not mention tariffs. Other tariff laws spell out how tariffs may be imposed.
Paragraphs 7 and 8
Paragraph 5 says the fentanyl tariffs included 25% on some goods from China, and paragraph 2 says the use of the law was “unconstitutional.” Check both against the sources the article links. What do you find?
The White House fact sheet the article links says 25% on Canada and Mexico but 10% on China, later raised to 20%. And the Court’s holding was that the law “does not authorize the President to impose tariffs,” a ruling about what the law allows, not a finding that anything was unconstitutional. That difference matters: Congress could pass a law that allows such tariffs. Even a careful explainer by an expert can get details wrong, which is why you check the source.
Paragraphs 2 and 5, with the White House fact sheet and the Court’s opinion
Connect it to the cards: the tariffs went up and down in steps, and the next steps, under other laws, came one at a time. Download the printable worksheet (PDF), with room to write and an answer key. Want more practice? Play Between the Lines: read a current news article, answer twelve questions, and see your reading level.
The first two moves at least happen in a moment you can point to: a joke, a repeated line. This one has no moment. Each step is small enough to accept, and by the time the total is visible, the starting point has moved.
What stayed with me from the research is that warning people did not stop it. In the dot studies, people who were told the mix would change, and even people paid to stay consistent, still moved their line. Knowing about the move is not enough. You need something outside your own memory to compare against.
That is why the advice on card 8 is so plain: write the line down, and compare to the first step, not the last one. It is the same thing I want my kids to do with their screens, and the same thing I am trying to do with the news.