Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Rand Issues Commentary: Innovation System as a Disruptive Battlespace
SANTA MONICA, California, March 7 -- Rand issued the following commentary on March 6, 2026, by research leader Marigold Black:* * *
The Innovation System as a Disruptive Battlespace
In 1913, Henry Ford popularized the concept of a moving production line, dividing the assembly of automobiles into steps, with workers performing specific tasks. Ford transformed the automative industry, making automobiles available to the masses, by revolutionizing the manufacturing process. This systematic approach has informed technological innovations ever since. It is identifiable in the frameworks that shape ... Show Full Article SANTA MONICA, California, March 7 -- Rand issued the following commentary on March 6, 2026, by research leader Marigold Black: * * * The Innovation System as a Disruptive Battlespace In 1913, Henry Ford popularized the concept of a moving production line, dividing the assembly of automobiles into steps, with workers performing specific tasks. Ford transformed the automative industry, making automobiles available to the masses, by revolutionizing the manufacturing process. This systematic approach has informed technological innovations ever since. It is identifiable in the frameworks that shapeemerging technologies in the modern era and constitutes a largely irreversible change in how associated systems will be constructed in the future. What remains underappreciated, however, is the extent to which this approach, by its highly structured nature, represents a security threat.
Modern systems and processes associated with technological innovation represent a novel and disruptive domain or battlespace relevant to both military and civilian organizations. Actors can maneuver within those systems to create specific cognitive, informational, and technological effects. Moreover, as they have become a typical feature of a nation's innovation landscape, similar ecologies are being developed by our enemies. And therein lies not only friction but opportunity. The systematized processes associated with technological innovation are ripe for manipulation through cognitive-style warfare and could be more effective in achieving asymmetric, and potentially strategic, advantage than the technologies themselves.
The growth of these systems has been widespread throughout the modern era, generating a new kind of sociotechnical reality. For example, the development of advanced transport and communications networks necessitated data management systems, metrics, and regulatory frameworks, especially as these technologies became accessible to the masses. We have become so reliant on digital technologies, and the systems and infrastructures that make them possible, that one scholar has argued that humans have become "hybrids of machine and organism" and increasingly fixated on the idea that technological advancement is the key to progress.
This technological dependence has restructured systems, organizations, and human cognition, and--somewhat counter to the purpose--has regimented the space for human creativity. Innovation hubs and accelerators, which are now pervasive in the modern landscape, were intended to foster new ideas, support startups, and connect entrepreneurs with resources and expertise. But they now often act in pursuit of narrow strategic priorities. What was once treated as an organic craft is now classified, operationalized, and systematized toward specific means and for explicit ends. The implications of this highly structured approach are significant yet poorly understood.
A structured technological innovation system allows for targeted resourcing and increased efficiency. But it also creates exposure through openness and dependence. This can create weak points, vulnerabilities, and brittleness, all of which can be attacked or exploited. Processes are mediated by technical systems (models, platforms, pipelines, evaluation metrics), influencing what problems are visible and which paths are most suitable. The systems become legible in the sense that their constituent parts can increasingly be "read" and understood. Moreover, the propensity for organizations to detail their innovation processes in written strategic plans, describing their modes and methods of execution, makes them readable not just figuratively but also literally.
These are serious exposures. Something that is steerable can become influenceable, and this could take the form of hostile manipulation. The reality is, our technological innovation systems are legible to friend and foe alike. An unexamined consequence of creating highly structured systems is the inability to control who is reading them and acting upon them. An actor could intervene at the level of tools, workflows, training data, incentives, or evaluation criteria with downstream effects on creative output, strategic direction, and institutional behavior. There are ample entry points for technical interventions, influence operations, and calculated deceptions, deployed such that they manipulate a rival into self-defeating positions. In effect, we could be innovating our way into a trap.
The central contention of this article is not one of doom and gloom, however. Our enemies, too, have implemented systematized innovation ecologies that could be manipulated to create distortions in perceptions and calculus. During the Cold War, the U.S. Office of Net Assessment used knowledge of Soviet organizational behavior to gain competitive advantage. A similarly rigorous understanding of modern technological innovation ecologies could provide prospects for gaining the upper hand, as it were. But such a course requires acuity and the ability to situate oneself outside of the systems in question. Deploying cognitive-style warfare as a means of weaponizing innovation systems involves a return to a more organic form of innovation. We can choose to become the attacker, rather than the attacked.
A recent NATO report (https://www.sto.nato.int/document/cognitive-warfare/) defined cognitive warfare as the "manipulation of the enemy's cognition," involving "the use of all knowledge, strategies, and available tools to impact human behavior.... with the end goal of manipulating and altering decision-making." Under this definition, the systems associated with technological innovation offer ripe pickings for cognitive-style warfare. Now that humans have fashioned this highly vulnerable domain, defined by the ever-deepening and increasingly structured union of humans and machines, we can no longer ignore the opportunities and threats we have built into it. And to be clear, if we decide we do not have the appetite for such a battle, our enemies certainly will.
* * *
More About This Commentary
Marigold Black is a research leader at RAND Australia. She specializes in the study of sovereignty in historical and contemporary perspective and the ideas that influence our understandings of defense, national security, and strategic success.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2026/03/the-innovation-system-as-a-disruptive-battlespace.html
[Category: ThinkTank]
In Heds, Use: CSIS Issues Commentary: What Does the Iran War Mean for Global Energy Markets?
WASHINGTON, March 7 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on March 6, 2026, by Director Joseph Majkut, non-resident senior adviser Kevin Book, non-resident senior associates Adi Imsirovic, Raad Alkadiri, Leslie Palti-Guzman, Ben Cahill and Sarah Emerson, all of the Energy Security and Climate Change Program:* * *
What Does the Iran War Mean for Global Energy Markets?
The sudden eruption of war in the Mideast Gulf has created dramatic new risks for global energy security. Iranian attacks have damaged oil and gas facilities in the Gulf region, and ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 7 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on March 6, 2026, by Director Joseph Majkut, non-resident senior adviser Kevin Book, non-resident senior associates Adi Imsirovic, Raad Alkadiri, Leslie Palti-Guzman, Ben Cahill and Sarah Emerson, all of the Energy Security and Climate Change Program: * * * What Does the Iran War Mean for Global Energy Markets? The sudden eruption of war in the Mideast Gulf has created dramatic new risks for global energy security. Iranian attacks have damaged oil and gas facilities in the Gulf region, andthreats against shipping though the Strait of Hormuz have brought maritime traffic to a near standstill, halting oil and liquified natural gas (LNG) exports. As the crisis continues, announcements of closing production fields and LNG export facilities are beginning to mount. On Friday, March 6, international Brent oil prices surpassed $92 per barrel, up 28 percent since last Friday's market close. Prolonged disruptions to shipping and/or significant damage to export facilities could cause lasting and larger price increases.
This week, President Donald Trump announced several measures to reduce potential energy price shocks. He said that the United States would guarantee shipping through the strait using both naval escorts and insurance products backed by the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, and that it would loosen energy sanctions on Russian oil imports into India.
In this Experts React, the CSIS Energy Security and Climate Change team evaluates how markets are responding to current events and identifies signposts for escalation or relaxation.
*
This Could Leave a Mark
Kevin Book, Senior Adviser (Non-resident), Energy Security and Climate Change Program
This isn't your grandfather's oil market. One after another, geopolitical catastrophes that kept scenario planners awake for decades have delivered smaller-than-expected price spikes. But a Strait of Hormuz shutdown is a big deal. Many analysts expected an average global liquids surplus of more than 3 million barrels per day (MM bbl/d) this year. Instead, global supplies are falling ~20 MM bbl/d short. It is still early. But, because oil prices tend to move inversely with inventories, a long interruption could take Brent crude above $100/bbl.
Indeed, we might be there already but for long global balances and robust inventories ahead of the crisis. Much credit goes to the shale patch. According to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. liquids growth from calendar years 2008 to 2025 corresponded to approximately 70 percent of the expansion in global supply. Other Western Hemisphere non-OPEC producers contributed recently, too (looking at you, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, and Guyana). Yet past growth can only go so far if existing output remains bottled up by an expanding war of unknown duration.
The demand side matters, too. The economic pinch might be tighter--and it might come sooner--but for a ~36 percent decline in the oil intensity of real global GDP over the 25 years through calendar year 2024 (based on a synthesis of Energy Institute and World Bank data). Much of that reduction can be ascribed to efficiency gains and economic diversification. It buys the world more time. But if vessel traffic through the strait does not soon resume, the pinch will arrive, and supply will balance demand at a higher price.
Then there is energy fungibility. Substitution across sources has its limits. For example, electricity cannot replace petroleum fuels in transportation without a sizeable global fleet of plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles. But the last big energy war offered a meaningful precedent. In 2022, sanctions and physical dislocations (read: Nord Stream) pared back that ~5 percent share of exported Russian Btus by ~20 percent. Impacts reverberated across subsectors. Most notably, as Asian LNG cargoes diverted to Europe in place of lost pipeline gas flows westbound from Russia, Asian power generators burned more petroleum liquids. Intuitively, impairment in the strait seems likely to produce similar reactions, perhaps by driving up capacity utilization at coal-fired generation facilities in Asia.
Ripples from the strait disruption could affect future investment, too. Import-reliant economies all over the world might look with new interest at lower-48 U.S. LNG. They also might see new strategic impetus in building out endogenous generating capacity (renewables in the near term, nuclear power over time) and accelerating the electrification of end-use sectors. The magnitude of such aftershocks seems likely to be proportional to the duration and scale of the crisis.
*
No Panic in the Oil Markets
Adi Imsirovic, Senior Associate (Non-resident), Energy Security and Climate Change Program
Despite clear risks to export facilities and shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, oil prices have barely reached $90 a barrel for Brent. This is surprising, as many observers expected such a scenario to lead to prices well more than $100 a barrel. Even more surprising, contracts for oil taking delivery in forward months, like January 2027, are hovering around $70.
What is going on, and is the market mispricing the risk of a prolonged conflict?
First, markets had already priced in the risk of military escalation. In the week preceding the initial strike, Brent rose from just above $60 to over $70 per barrel. Risk was accumulating before the first shot was fired. Then, after Iran targeted energy facilities and threatened shipping through the strait, the June-December Brent spread moved from $3.5 to $9 a barrel, indicating a steep premium for prompt oil delivery.
So why would the front of the curve respond violently, but the back end remain anchored at about $70 a barrel? There are several reasons for this.
First, the market anticipated a large oversupply of oil this year, caused by healthy supply, particularly from the safe regions of the Americas (United States, Brazil, Guyana, and Canada), meeting anemic demand growth from China.
Second, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development emergency stocks are healthy, holding at least 90 days of consumption. Chinese oil inventory is large enough to last a lot longer, perhaps well over 110 days of consumption. The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve has over 400 million barrels of oil available to its refineries. Being the largest oil producer in the world, and a large exporter, this volume would cover some 125 days of demand.
Finally, the current problem is not a lack of oil but a lack of secure transportation from the Persian Gulf. The Straits of Hormuz are over 20 kilometers wide and cannot be easily shut. But they can be treacherous, and this risk has to be mitigated. This logistical problem can be resolved by the provision of adequate war insurance cover and, ideally, policing of the straits. While the latter is unlikely, the former would get the shipping moving again, supplying the precious commodity.
A prolonged war may well result in elevated prices, but markets work. Oil markets are volatile, but they are not irrational. There will be no shortages, and no reasons to panic.
*
Factors Mitigating the Long Duration War Scenario
Sarah Emerson, Senior Associate (Non-resident), Energy Security and Climate Change Program
Recent reporting on strikes and damage across the Arab Gulf gives the impression of escalating risk. Fires at Ras Laffan and Ras Tanura and reduced traffic through the Strait of Hormuz have lifted oil prices modestly. While an intentional or accidental attack could still cause significant casualties or damage to energy infrastructure, several factors suggest the conflict may be difficult to sustain at its current intensity and could shorten its duration.
The current pace of strikes cannot continue indefinitely. U.S. and Israeli forces are diminishing Iran's missile and drone capabilities. Meanwhile, interceptor missile stocks in the Gulf countries are declining. The United States and Israel are claiming air superiority over Iran, which will allow for a shift to aircraft-delivered munitions, allowing closer targeting and perhaps more effective air-to-air elimination of drones.
Iranian attacks on energy infrastructure have caused only modest damage, suggesting they may be a secondary target. Iran's strategy appears focused on lashing out at as many targets as possible, including air bases, embassies, hotels, and other locations where Americans might be. Reportedly, commanders in the field were given authority to target and strike without centralized coordination. In a conflict covering as much territory as this one, that lack of coordination may explain the pinprick, scattershot nature of Iran's attacks.
Meanwhile, energy disruption will pressure Iran too. The United States is insulated from the loss of supplies flowing through the strait, at least in the short term. By contrast, Iran's primary customer, China, is directly and immediately impacted by the drop in flows from the region. China has already called for the return to unfettered shipping though the Strait of Hormuz. Iran's crude stocks stored at sea are currently about 155 million barrels, which suggests Iran has about 100 days of exports already outside of the Strait of Hormuz. Given the distance of Iran from China, Iran will eventually need to replenish those stocks. They cannot do that if the strait is closed or if their own oil infrastructure is destroyed in retaliation for their attacks on oil facilities and flows.
*
After the Storm, OPEC+ Will Face Choppy Seas
Raad Alkadiri, Senior Associate (Non-resident), Energy Security and Climate Change Program
OPEC+'s market management task this year just got a lot more difficult at a time when fiscal pressure on key producers, including Saudi Arabia, is growing sharply. With the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran, and Tehran's regional retaliation, the short-term supply-demand picture has gotten a lot more complicated.
But, the immediate supply impact is perhaps clearer than the longer-term impact on demand, complicating what was already OPEC+'s biggest market uncertainty this year. Will global economic growth be slower? Will countries tap reserves and then move quickly to refill them? Will higher prices encourage more investment in non-OPEC production? Will the Trump administration demand compensation--in coin and barrels--for the cost of the war? These are just a few of the questions OPEC+ will be faced with once the rockets stop flying and exports resume.
OPEC+ is most likely to continue its standing short-term market management strategy--adjusting supply to prevent price declines. The diminished disruptive ability of some of its most difficult-to-manage members--Russia, Venezuela, and Iran--will provide some respite.
Nevertheless, volatility and prices swings are likely to be a feature of crude markets for several months, even in the event of a quick and decisive resolution of the conflict. A messy outcome, with violence and instability escalating intermittently for months or even years, will make markets even more jumpy, and short-term fundamentals more difficult to predict. This year will test OPEC+'s market management skills.
*
The War in Iran Puts Qatar's LNG Expansion in Question
Leslie Palti-Guzman, Senior Associate (Non-resident), Energy Security and Climate Change Program
The ongoing war introduces a new uncertainty over the large LNG expansion currently underway in Qatar. Doha's North Field expansion, designed to increase LNG export capacity from 77 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) today to 110 mtpa by 2027 and potentially 126 mtpa by the end of the decade, has been central to expectations of abundant LNG supply later this decade.
LNG megaprojects operate on tight engineering schedules and depend on bottleneck-free supply chains. Even temporary disruptions around Qatar's main export hub at Ras Laffan or heightened security conditions in the Gulf could slow the commissioning of new liquefaction trains. Sustained shipping "war premiums" for transiting the Strait of Hormuz could also affect the delivery of critical equipment. QatarEnergy had already announced a delay for its 33 mtpa, four-train North Field East project, now expected to start toward the end of 2026 rather than mid-2026. A delay of even six to twelve months would remove significant volumes from the market at a time when global LNG buyers were anticipating lower prices for 2027-2028.
The conflict not only raises questions about the timing of Qatar's expansion, but also about the future of the tacit arrangement governing the shared reservoir between Qatar and Iran. The field contains roughly 51 trillion cubic meters (tcm) of non-associated gas in place, including an estimated 25 tcm of recoverable reserves in Qatari waters and about 14 tcm in Iranian waters. Reservoir management requires coordination between the two countries because production rates on one side can influence gas migration, pressure, and recovery on the other side. Political fragmentation in Iran or a shift toward resource nationalism could complicate cooperation and introduce uncertainty around the long-term development of the field.
The best-case scenario for Qatar would be the emergence of a stable and pragmatic leadership in Tehran that continues to respect the bilateral arrangements governing the shared reservoir. If the war ultimately leads to the emergence of a more pro-American government in Tehran, one of Qatar's most persistent structural geographic and shipping vulnerabilities could diminish. For Doha, this outcome would likely require repositioning itself more clearly alongside the U.S. and Israel as the regional balance of power shifts.
*
Collateral Damage for Qatar's LNG Industry
Ben Cahill, Senior Associate (Non-resident), Energy Security and Climate Change Program
Tiny Qatar is a giant in the LNG world, but its unique standing in the global market just took a hit. Since the inception of Qatar's LNG industry, the country has prized its reputation as a stable supplier. It offered scale and dependability to buyers. Qatar Energy leveraged this status in commercial negotiations, especially with buyers in Northeast Asia, who regard LNG as a vital source of energy security. Qatar typically insists on long-term contracts with oil-linked pricing, as well as destination restrictions. No other country could successfully demand such terms. Even some buyers who previously balked at Qatar's commercial terms have recently signed new supply contracts.
In part, this is because Qatar is expanding supply. The International Energy Agency estimates that Qatar's multi-phase North Field expansion will account for about 21 percent of expected global supply additions between now and 2030--although project timing had already started to slip.
Now, through no fault of its own, Qatar's near-flawless delivery record has been dented. Qatar Energy halted operations at its giant Ras Laffan complex on March 2 after a drone strike, and it declared force majeure to buyers on March 4. Even when plant operators believe it is safe to resume operations, it could take several weeks or more to fully restart production.
If supply from Qatar and the United Arab Emirates is halted for one month, that would remove about 7 million tons of LNG from the market. That is a manageable amount. For context, U.S. LNG supply grew by more than 20 million tons last year. But anything longer than a month's disruption--which seems increasingly likely--and the LNG oversupply widely anticipated to begin this year would disappear, with spot prices reflecting a much tighter market.
There is simply no way to replace lost volumes from a supplier as large as Qatar. The country produced nearly 20 percent of global LNG last year, with more than 80 percent of its cargoes directed to Asia. A sustained production hit would affect buyers around the world--both term buyers in South Asia who depend heavily on Qatar, and spot market buyers who may find themselves in fierce competition for cargoes. This turn of events could be especially tough in Europe, where natural gas inventories across the European Union are currently at 30 percent of capacity. Summer, the primary season to refill gas storage, is just around the corner.
LNG buyers always consider risks associated with certain suppliers, and the larger buyers aim to diversify their supply sources and exposure to price and aboveground risks. The current Gulf conflict highlights the transit and geopolitical risks associated with LNG supply from Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman. Buyers cannot avoid such risks entirely, especially over the lifespan of a 20-year supply contract. But LNG supply from other regions, including the United States, now may have added long-term appeal.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-does-iran-war-mean-global-energy-markets
[Category: ThinkTank]
Ifo Institute: Income Tax Reforms Saved German Taxpayers EUR 15 Billion Despite Fiscal Drag
MUNICH, Germany, March 7 (TNSxrep) -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on March 6, 2026:* * *
Income Tax Reforms Saved German Taxpayers EUR 15 Billion Despite Fiscal Drag
The government not only offset the effects of fiscal drag in Germany between 2019 and 2023 but also provided relief, as a new study by EconPol Europe shows. "Overall, the relief effect of various income tax reforms between 2019 and 2023 was greater than the burden caused by fiscal drag," says ifo researcher Max Lay. "The relief for taxpayers in Germany was around EUR 15 billion higher than from simply offsetting ... Show Full Article MUNICH, Germany, March 7 (TNSxrep) -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on March 6, 2026: * * * Income Tax Reforms Saved German Taxpayers EUR 15 Billion Despite Fiscal Drag The government not only offset the effects of fiscal drag in Germany between 2019 and 2023 but also provided relief, as a new study by EconPol Europe shows. "Overall, the relief effect of various income tax reforms between 2019 and 2023 was greater than the burden caused by fiscal drag," says ifo researcher Max Lay. "The relief for taxpayers in Germany was around EUR 15 billion higher than from simply offsettingfiscal drag."
The inflation-driven increase in nominal wages would have led to many income groups slipping into a higher tax bracket. "Without income tax reforms, fiscal drag would have burdened taxpayers by an additional EUR 50 billion between 2019 and 2023," says ifo researcher Mathias Dolls. "In addition to the Inflation Adjustment Act and the 2022 tax relief package, the far-reaching abolition of the solidarity surcharge in 2021 in particular helped to more than offset the burden of fiscal drag."
Overall, the study examines the effects of fiscal drag and the political countermeasures in 21 European countries. Alongside Germany, Luxembourg, Lithuania, Austria, Croatia, Slovenia, Slovakia and Latvia have also overcompensated for the effects of fiscal drag. Finland, Ireland, France, Portugal and Greece have largely or completely offset the effect. Cyprus, Spain, Malta, Italy, Estonia, the Netherlands, Belgium and Hungary have only partially compensated for fiscal drag. "The political measures to combat fiscal drag in the affected countries covered a broad spectrum. They ranged from a tax rate linked to inflation to new deductions or changes to tax rates," says Lay.
Using harmonized microdata, the study documents the effects of so-called fiscal drag for 21 European countries. It also examines the effects of political measures to compensate for fiscal drag in the individual countries in the period from 2019 to 2023.
* * *
Publication
2026 Working Paper
Fiscal Drag in Europe: Key Facts
Mathias Dolls, Esteban Garcia-Miralles, Max Lay, Andreas Peichl
EconPol Policy Brief 82
Learn more (https://www.ifo.de/en/econpol/publications/2026/working-paper/fiscal-drag-europe-key-facts)
* * *
2025 Working Paper
Fiscal Drag in Theory and in Practice: A European Perspective
Esteban Garcia-Miralles, Maximilian Freier, Sara Riscado, Chrysa Leventi, Alberto Mazzoni, Glenn Abela, Laura Boyd, Baiba Brusbarde, Marion Cochard, David Cornille, Emanuele Dicarlo, Ian Debattista, Mar Delgado-Tellez, Mathias Dolls, Ludmila Fadejeva, Maria Flevotomou, Florian Henne, Alena Harrer-Bachleitner, Viktor Jaszberenyi-Kiraly, Max Lay, Laura Lehtonen, Mauro Mastrogiacomo, Tara McIndoe Calder, Mathias Moeser, Martin Nevicky, Andreas Peichl, Myroslav Pidkuyko, Mojca Roter, Frederique Savignac, Andreja Strojan Kastelec, Vaidotas Tuzikas, Nikos Ventouris, Lara Wemans
CESifo Working Paper No. 12192
Learn more (https://www.ifo.de/en/cesifo/publications/2025/working-paper/fiscal-drag-theory-and-practice-european-perspective)
* * *
Original text here: ifo.de/en/detail-suche?size=n_10_n&filters%5B0%5D%5Bfield%5D=bundle.keyword&filters%5B0%5D%5Bvalues%5D%5B0%5D=pressemitteilung&filters%5B1%5D%5Bfield%5D=bundle.keyword&filters%5B1%5D%5Bvalues%5D%5B0%5D=pressemitteilung&filters%5B2%5D%5Bfield%5D=bundle.keyword&filters%5B2%5D%5Bvalues%5D%5B0%5D=pressemitteilung&filters%5B3%5D%5Bfield%5D=bundle.keyword&filters%5B3%5D%5Bvalues%5D%5B0%5D=pressemitteilung&sort-field=_score&sort-direction=desc
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center Issues Commentary: Big Philanthropy 'Decolonizes' Itself
WASHINGTON, March 7 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on March 6, 2026, by senior research analyst Robert Stilson:* * *
Big Philanthropy "decolonizes" itself
The Decolonizing Wealth Project claims colonialism and racism created America's richest foundations. They have a $1 trillion plan to redistribute the wealth and it's getting support from ... some of the America's richest foundations.
*
Last year, a group called the Decolonizing Wealth Project announced a "moonshot" goal of redirecting $1 trillion in philanthropic dollars towards what it calls "reparative ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 7 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on March 6, 2026, by senior research analyst Robert Stilson: * * * Big Philanthropy "decolonizes" itself The Decolonizing Wealth Project claims colonialism and racism created America's richest foundations. They have a $1 trillion plan to redistribute the wealth and it's getting support from ... some of the America's richest foundations. * Last year, a group called the Decolonizing Wealth Project announced a "moonshot" goal of redirecting $1 trillion in philanthropic dollars towards what it calls "reparativephilanthropy" over the following decade. It defines such giving as "the redistribution of resources in a manner that acknowledges the extractive origins of philanthropic wealth (family or institutional) and how colonization, slavery and the forms of oppression facilitated the accumulation of wealth that philanthropy protects, grows and distributes."
The "moonshot" announcement noted that the group had already influenced nearly $1 billion in grantmaking and asserted that its efforts had "fundamentally transformed how philanthropy operates in the United States and beyond." Decolonizing Wealth has indeed attracted substantial support--both financial and ideological--from some of the largest and most well-known foundations in the country. It is therefore worth examining the group's philanthropic philosophy and practices, both for its own sake and for what it reveals about the worldview of the sector more broadly.
Background
The origins of the Decolonizing Wealth Project lie in a 2018 book, written by the group's founder and CEO Edgar Villanueva, entitled Decolonizing Wealth: Indigenous Wisdom to Heal Divides and Restore Balance. Ford Foundation executive vice president Hilary Pennington called it the single most impactful thing she had ever read on "the intersection between race, racism, colonization, and philanthropy." The project is an organizational outgrowth of the book.
Villanueva has an extensive background in philanthropy. In addition to founding Decolonizing Wealth, he has held positions at the Kate B. Reynolds Charitable Trust, the Marguerite Casy Foundation (itself a major funder of left-wing public policy activism), and the Schott Foundation for Public Education. He has served on the boards of the Andrus Family Fund and Native Americans in Philanthropy, and is currently listed as a board member at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Villanueva is also a board member at the NDN Collective--an activist group that has (among other things) demanded that the federal government close Mount Rushmore National Memorial and return the "stolen" land it occupies to the Lakota Sioux.
Global philanthropy, according to Decolonizing Wealth, "has its roots in the legacy of colonization, [and is] built on harmful, racially biased beliefs that have long limited the power and agency of the people of color, particularly in the Global South." The group believes that philanthropy improperly centers "whiteness as the norm," and argues that the sector can function as a "shield for capitalism" by permitting wealthy donors to mitigate some of its supposed harms while avoiding having to confront and change "the systems that allow them to accumulate vast wealth in the first place."
Race and ethnicity appear to be the central considerations underlying Decolonizing Wealth's "reparative philanthropy" philosophy, and the group's efforts to influence major grantmakers along these lines have included so-called "PhilanthropySoWhite" discussions, featuring executives from the Ford Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, the Nellie Mae Education Foundation, the Groundswell Fund, and the Stupski Foundation.
Grantmaking
The Decolonizing Wealth Project was a fiscally-sponsored project of the Michigan-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit Allied Media Projects until approximately 2023/2024, when its sponsorship was transferred to the Amalgamated Charitable Foundation. Decolonizing Wealth also operates a pooled fund called Liberated Capital, which Villanueva has characterized as a type of donor-advised fund. Villanueva has been highly critical of traditional donor-advised funds--calling them a vehicle that helps "uphold white supremacy"--and donors to Liberated Capital relinquish control of grantmaking decisions to "community advisors from the populations being served," according to a recent Forbes profile.
On its website, Decolonizing Wealth claims to have distributed over $30 million worth of grants since 2020 "to Black, Indigenous-led organizations and other historically under-resourced groups." Three-quarters of its grantees are led by minority women, and more than two-thirds are said to have budgets under $1 million. Grants are made through six different funding programs, which include those promoting the "rematriation" of land to Native Americans, supporting "culturally responsive mental health care for youth navigating intersecting identities and systemic challenges," developing "indigenous solutions for climate resiliency and land conservation," and advocating for racial reparations for Black Americans.
An archived version of the Liberated Capital webpage from March 2025 explains that grants are unrestricted and made "to support general operating costs, on a trust-basis." That page and others list hundreds of different grantees, many of which are stridently left-wing (sometimes radically so) activist groups. These include:
* Action Center on Race & the Economy
* Black Land and Liberation Initiative
* Black Lives Matter Minnesota
* Black Visions
* Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Institute
* BYP100
* California Native Vote Project
* DC Justice Lab
* Equal Justice Society
* Giniw Collective
* Honor the Earth
* IllumiNative
* Indigenous Environmental Network
* Movement for Black Lives
* N'COBRA
* NDN Collective
* New Georgia Project
* Pueblo Action Alliance
* Resources Legacy Fund
* SisterSong
* Sogorea Te' Land Trust
Funders
Numerous private foundations and other grantmakers have reported making grants to the Decolonizing Wealth Project through one or both of its fiscal sponsors. These include:
* The California Endowment ($5.88 million from 2022-2024); a private foundation established in 1996 through the conversion of Blue Cross of California from a nonprofit to a for-profit entity. It reported $3.95 billion net assets in 2024.
* The MacArthur Foundation ($3.75 million in 2021); a private foundation established in 1970 and capitalized from the estate of insurance magnate John D. MacArthur, who died in 1978 as one of the wealthiest individuals in the United States. It reported $8.65 billion net assets in 2024.
* The Satterberg Foundation ($3.14 million from 2019-2024); a once-small Seattle foundation that received hundreds of millions of dollars in the mid-2010s from the estate of attorney William Helsell. It reported $425 million net assets in 2024.
* The Chicago Community Trust ($3 million in 2021); a community foundation that also serves as a donor-advised fund provider--despite its name, according to its most recent tax filings only three of its top twenty domestic grant recipients were located in Chicago. It reported $5.98 billion net assets in 2024.
* The Ford Foundation ($2.7 million from 2019-2024); one of the largest, most well-known, and most thoroughly left-wing foundations in the country, its endowment originated from wealth created generations ago by Henry Ford. It reported $14.9 billion net assets in 2024.
* The Pivotal Philanthropies Foundation ($2 million in 2022); the largest of at least five different private foundations associated with the Pivotal philanthropic network controlled by Melinda French Gates and recently capitalized with billions of dollars from her ex-husband Bill Gates. It reported $6.9 billion net assets in 2024.
* The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation ($1.78 million from 2023-2024); founded in 1936 by the onetime president and chairman of Johnson & Johnson, the foundation still holds over $1.2 billion worth of the company's stock. It reported $12.48 billion net assets in 2024.
* The Skoll Foundation ($1.5 million from 2022-2024); a private foundation established by the first full-time employee and former president of eBay Jeffrey Skoll. It reported $810.2 million net assets in 2024.
* The Omidyar Network Fund ($1.175 million from 2020-2024); a private foundation established by the billionaire founder of eBay Pierre Omidyar. It reported $378 million net assets in 2024.
* The Weingart Foundation ($1 million from 2023-2024); a Los Angeles-based private foundation established in 1951 by real estate developer Ben Weingart and his wife Stella. It reported $848.5 million net assets in 2024.
* Magic Cabinet/Ken Birdwell Foundation ($1 million from 2023-2024); a private foundation established by longtime Valve Corporation software engineer Ken Birdwell. It reported $146 million net assets in 2024.
Excluding the Chicago Community Trust as a donor-advised fund provider, the combined 2024 total net assets of the remaining ten major private foundation funders of Decolonizing Wealth totaled nearly $49.5 billion.
On top of this, grantmakers that have given at least six figures to Decolonizing Wealth over the years include the California Wellness Foundation, the Christensen Fund, Working Families Power, the Bafrayung Fund, the NoVo Foundation, and the Kresge Foundation. In 2021, MacKenzie Scott also gave an undisclosed amount through her Yield Giving philanthropy.
Other grantmakers appear to have designated funding specifically for Liberated Capital without mentioning Decolonizing Wealth. For example, Pierre Omidyar's Democracy Fund gave $500,000 to Allied Media Projects to support Liberated Capital in 2020, while the Bafrayung Fund contributed $1 million in 2021 to Liberated Capital at the address of the Social Good Fund, which was accepting donations on Liberated Capital's behalf at the time. In 2024, the Amalgamated Charitable Foundation (Decolonizing Wealth's current fiscal sponsor) reported making $4.03 million worth of grants to a limited liability company called Decolonizing Wealth Project Inc. It is unclear whether this simply reflects its sponsorship activities, or something different.
Thoughts and questions
The ordinary American taxpayer who is incentivizing philanthropy through the tax code probably has a relatively traditional (if perhaps vague) understanding of what it is, where it comes from, and the sorts of things it should generally be funding. Contemporary Big Philanthropy is frequently at odds with this understanding, and Villanueva is regrettably accurate when he observes that instead of helping, philanthropy "often further divides and destabilizes society."
That said, what could be more divisive and destabilizing to society than a politically charged $1 trillion philanthropic "moonshot" that is largely predicated upon the skin color of the recipients and/or who their forebearers happened to be? This appears to be the central purpose of the Decolonizing Wealth Project, and it has been embraced by some of the biggest philanthropic names in the country.
Villanueva contends that "settlers and their descendants" must "grieve the lives of their ancestors, the culture that made their acts of domination and exploitation even imaginable, possible, and acceptable." He believes that "poverty is the product of public policy and theft, facilitated by white supremacy," and that philanthropic dollars have "been twice stolen: once through the colonial-style exploitation of natural resources and exploited labor, and the second time, through tax evasion." Though he doesn't quite believe philanthropy is beyond salvation, Villanueva "empathize[s]" with the view that "the colonial system of wealth consolidation based on white supremacy has caused so much damage and suffering and is so intrinsically rotten that anything related to it, including the ostensibly altruistic worlds of philanthropy or aid, cannot be fixed, trusted, or saved."
Do the Ford, MacArthur, and Robert Wood Johnson foundations believe that the perpetuation of their ancestral endowments constitutes tax evasion? Do Pierre Omidyar and Jeffrey Skoll believe that their wealth was acquired through colonial-style exploitation? Does Melinda French Gates believe that her philanthropic network has been built with money that has been stolen twice? This is certainly what their seven-figure grants to the Decolonizing Wealth Project suggests.
What are those of us who collectively incentivize their philanthropy through favorable tax treatment supposed to make of that?
* * *
Robert Stilson, Senior Research Analyst
Robert runs several of CRC's specialized projects.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/big-philanthropy-decolonizes-itself/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: No One, Not Even Beijing, Is Getting Through the Strait of Hormuz
WASHINGTON, March 7 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on March 6, 2026, by Deputy Director Harrison Pretat, research associate Monica Michiko Sato, both of the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, Aidan Powers-Riggs, associate fellow for China Studies with the iDeas Lab, and Matthew P. Funaiole, vice president of the iDeas Lab and Andreas C. Dracopoulos Chair in Innovation: * * *
No One, Not Even Beijing, Is Getting Through the Strait of Hormuz
Since the United States and Israel launched an attack on Iran a week ago, maritime traffic through ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 7 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on March 6, 2026, by Deputy Director Harrison Pretat, research associate Monica Michiko Sato, both of the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, Aidan Powers-Riggs, associate fellow for China Studies with the iDeas Lab, and Matthew P. Funaiole, vice president of the iDeas Lab and Andreas C. Dracopoulos Chair in Innovation: * * * No One, Not Even Beijing, Is Getting Through the Strait of Hormuz Since the United States and Israel launched an attack on Iran a week ago, maritime traffic throughthe Strait of Hormuz has come to a virtual standstill. The resulting trade disruptions will be felt globally, but China's outsized reliance on energy imports from the region and its position as one of Iran's few remaining international partners makes its response to the crisis especially consequential.
Despite Beijing's calls to keep the strait open to international trade, ship-tracking data shows that Chinese tanker and container ships have all but ceased transits since the conflict began, leaving dozens of Chinese ships trapped in the Persian Gulf. This data underscores China's limited ability to shape the course of the conflict, even to protect its own strategic and commercial interests.
Traffic Stops
Quickly after the initial round of air strikes, which killed Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other senior political and military officials, the country's remaining leadership announced that its retaliation would include strikes on regional energy infrastructure and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. On March 2, a senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) adviser declared that any vessel attempting to pass through the strait would be attacked. Within 24 hours, at least five commercial ships operating in nearby waters were targeted with drones or missiles.
Traffic estimates based on ship-tracking data indicate that Iran has so far been largely successful in shutting down traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. Automatic identification system (AIS) data from Starboard Maritime Intelligence shows that the strait was averaging more than 153 vessel transits per day in the weeks leading up to the conflict, with container ships and oil tankers together making up roughly 88 percent of traffic. But since March 1, only 78 vessels have been detected passing through the strait, for a daily average of 13.
Transits have quickly dropped off as the conflict has escalated. On February 28, the day of the initial strikes on Tehran, 105 ships transited the strait--approximately 68 percent of its typical volume compared to prior weeks. By March 2, total traffic fell to a mere 13 transits (8 percent of normal volume), with only a single oil tanker observed transiting.
No Exception for China
The Strait of Hormuz's closure has wide-reaching consequences for energy markets and for states reliant on exports from the region, but one customer of particular interest is China, which imports as much as 40 percent of its oil and 30 percent of its liquid natural gas (LNG) through the strait. Beijing has publicly urged all parties in the war to keep the strait open to avoid disrupting international trade.
Early unverified accounts had suggested that Chinese-flagged or -owned vessels might enjoy privileged access through the strait, owing to Beijing and Tehran's increasing diplomatic alignment. Such an agreement would have precedent: In 2024, the Houthis, an Iran-backed rebel group, reportedly agreed to avoid targeting Chinese merchant vessels during its campaign against commercial shipping in the Red Sea. However, data thus far suggests that Chinese vessels have not yet received similar assurances in this conflict.
Between February 23 and 28, AIS data shows that more than 49 Chinese- and Hong Kong-flagged vessels transited the Strait of Hormuz. But since March 1, just two Chinese-flagged ships have been observed transiting the strait.
Bulk cargo carrier Jin Hai Wo managed to pass through midday on March 1, while another container ship, Run Chen 2, appears to have made a midnight run through the strait with its AIS transponder turned off. Its signal went dark at 9:30 pm local time on March 1 near the western mouth of the strait before reappearing in the Gulf of Oman at 4:20 am the next morning.
The closure has also left Chinese ships stuck on both sides of the strait. Outside, cargo carriers like the Xin Hai Kou that were heading toward the strait are now idling in the Gulf of Oman.
Inside, 55 Chinese-flagged ships remain trapped in the Persian Gulf.
Curiously, while almost all China-flagged vessels have chosen not to attempt transit, a Marshall Islands-flagged cargo ship named Iron Maiden invoked Chinese identity in an apparent effort to get through the strait unscathed. In an incident reported by Bloomberg, the ship changed its AIS destination to read "CHINA OWNER" just before it passed through the strait in the early morning of March 5.
Friends Like These
These developments showcase a divergence in strategic priorities between China and Iran, with Beijing's calls to keep traffic flowing through the strait running directly counter to Tehran's declared aims of shutting down energy exports from the region. It should come as no surprise that, given the existential threat they face, Iran's leaders are putting the regime's survival above Beijing's desires for global energy stability.
Still, it is possible that Iranian officials could consider quietly granting Chinese ships a green light to continue operating through the strait, particularly if the conflict drags on for weeks or months. Such assurances could even be used as a bargaining chip to encourage China to take more concrete action to support the Iranian regime. Reporting by Reuters on March 5 suggests that talks between Iranian and Chinese officials on an arrangement to allow tankers safe passage through the strait are actively underway.
Yet, even if with such assurances in hand, Chinese operators would be bold to risk transiting an active warzone, especially given the Iranian military's targeting of energy hubs in the strait, such as the United Arab Emirates' port of Fujairah and Oman's Duqm port. Skyrocketing insurance premiums for shippers also heavily discourage taking such risks, with most insurers canceling war risk coverage altogether.
Ultimately, while Beijing and Tehran may be strategically aligned on certain issues, it would seem difficult for that concord to translate into better access to the Persian Gulf for Chinese ships as long as strikes continue in the region surrounding the Strait of Hormuz. If the intensity of operations falls in the coming days or weeks, however, it could create a more hospitable environment for such an arrangement.
Looking Ahead
The Strait of Hormuz's closure has global implications. As a critical chokepoint for the world's oil and LNG, a sustained halt on maritime traffic through the strait would strain global supply chains and put pressure on energy prices. Major Asian economies such as China, India, Japan, and South Korea could be especially affected, as over 80 percent of oil and LNG transiting the strait is bound for Asia.
While China is by far the largest single destination for these energy flows, it may be better positioned than its neighbors to weather short-term price shocks. China has stockpiled significant amounts of crude oil over the past year, and it has room to substitute Middle Eastern oil with alternative energy sources such as LNG and coal to insulate its economy.
Still, China is far from immune from mounting costs of critical trade disruptions rippling through the global economy. On March 5, Beijing directed its oil refiners to halt fuel exports, in a sign of growing unease. If the conflict drags on for weeks or months (as President Trump has indicated it could) and shipping through the Strait of Hormuz remains blocked, China may begin putting more active pressure on all actors involved to bring hostilities to a close.
* * *
Harrison Pretat is deputy director and fellow with the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Monica Michiko Sato is a research associate for the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI) at CSIS. Aidan Powers-Riggs is an associate fellow for China Studies with the iDeas Lab at CSIS. Matthew P. Funaiole is vice president of the iDeas Lab, Andreas C. Dracopoulos Chair in Innovation, and senior fellow in the China Power Project at CSIS.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/no-one-not-even-beijing-getting-through-strait-hormuz
[Category: ThinkTank]
American Experiment Helps Blunt Bill That Would Have Restricted ICE's Ability to Access Childcare Facilities
GOLDEN VALLEY, Minnesota, March 7 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on March 6, 2026, by public safety policy fellow David Zimmer:* * *
American Experiment helps blunt bill that would have restricted ICE's ability to access childcare facilities
Yesterday, the Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) introduced HF3415 in the Children and Families Finance and Policy Committee.
The bill as originally introduced would have inappropriately restricted Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ... Show Full Article GOLDEN VALLEY, Minnesota, March 7 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on March 6, 2026, by public safety policy fellow David Zimmer: * * * American Experiment helps blunt bill that would have restricted ICE's ability to access childcare facilities Yesterday, the Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) introduced HF3415 in the Children and Families Finance and Policy Committee. The bill as originally introduced would have inappropriately restricted Department of Homeland Security (DHS)agents investigating immigration violations. These restrictions included vague requirements of providing "valid identification," "providing a written statement of purpose," and obtaining "approval from the childcare facility's license holder" before a DHS agent with a judicial warrant could enter a childcare facility.
Public safety policy fellow Zimmer submitted written testimony pointing out that the bill ignored the legal authority granted by a judicial warrant and would have placed childcare professionals in a catch-22 by obligating them to obstruct federal agents. Most significantly, the bill would have violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits states from passing law that would conflict with or undermine the authority of the federal government.
American Experiment provided the only testimony in opposition the bill.
During the hearing, DFL committee members introduced a DE amendment that struck some of the conflicts pointed out in our opposition letter. That amendment was accepted, and 14 testifiers testified in support of the bill as amended.
Member discussion was followed by a committee vote. The bill was voted upon and failed to move out of committee on a split party line vote.
* * *
David Zimmer is a Public Safety Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment.
David.Zimmer@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/american-experiment-helps-blunt-bill-that-would-have-restricted-ices-ability-to-access-childcare-facilities/
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI Applauds Governor Braun for Signing Comprehensive Human Services Reforms Into Law
WASHINGTON, March 7 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on March 6, 2026:* * *
AFPI Applauds Governor Braun for Signing Comprehensive Human Services Reforms into Law
Today, the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) issued the following statement from Matthew Schmid, Health & Harvest Campaign Director, about the Indiana legislature and AFPI Governor's Council Member Governor Mike Braun passing Senate Bill 1:
"Governor Braun's signature this week on a comprehensive package of welfare reforms ensures that state taxpayer-funded assistance programs benefit the people ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 7 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on March 6, 2026: * * * AFPI Applauds Governor Braun for Signing Comprehensive Human Services Reforms into Law Today, the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) issued the following statement from Matthew Schmid, Health & Harvest Campaign Director, about the Indiana legislature and AFPI Governor's Council Member Governor Mike Braun passing Senate Bill 1: "Governor Braun's signature this week on a comprehensive package of welfare reforms ensures that state taxpayer-funded assistance programs benefit the peoplewho need them most.
These reforms include commonsense guardrails such as Medicaid fraud prevention measures, closing a food stamp loophole that bypassed federal eligibility requirements, and codifying the governor's executive action from earlier this year to stop taxpayers from subsidizing unhealthy junk food purchases with food stamp dollars."
"Preserving the public trust when it comes to American generosity requires leadership."
The passage and signing of Senate Bill 1 align Indiana with new Medicaid work requirements included in the Working Families Tax Cuts Act, strengthens Medicaid program integrity and federal data sharing, and reflects policy reforms highlighted in AFPI research on closing food stamp loopholes and preserving SNAP as a nutrition-focused program.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-applauds-governor-braun-for-signing-comprehensive-human-services-reforms-into-law
[Category: ThinkTank]