Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Ifo Institute: Business Climate for Residential Construction in Germany Slumps
MUNICH, Germany, May 16 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on May 15, 2026:
* * *
Business Climate for Residential Construction in Germany Slumps
Sentiment in residential construction in Germany deteriorated massively in April. The business climate fell from -19.3 to -28.4 points, the strongest decline since April 2022. Companies' expectations, in particular, were much more pessimistic, and current business was also assessed as being worse.
"Geopolitical uncertainty is now also weighing on residential construction in Germany," says Klaus Wohlrabe, Head of Surveys at ifo. "With
... Show Full Article
MUNICH, Germany, May 16 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on May 15, 2026:
* * *
Business Climate for Residential Construction in Germany Slumps
Sentiment in residential construction in Germany deteriorated massively in April. The business climate fell from -19.3 to -28.4 points, the strongest decline since April 2022. Companies' expectations, in particular, were much more pessimistic, and current business was also assessed as being worse.
"Geopolitical uncertainty is now also weighing on residential construction in Germany," says Klaus Wohlrabe, Head of Surveys at ifo. "Withfragile supply chains and rising financing costs, the construction industry is facing multiple risks at once."
Concerns about potential supply problems with key intermediate products are growing again. In April, 9.2% of companies reported constraints in their supply of materials.
Previously, the figure had been only about one% over a two-year period. Basic materials are affected in particular.
"As far as current business is concerned, the situation remains unchanged," says Wohlrabe. The share of companies reporting too few orders remained virtually unchanged at 43.8%. The cancellation rate also remained stable at 10.8%.
* * *
More Information
Survey (https://www.ifo.de/en/facts/2026-05-15/business-climate-residential-construction-germany-slumps)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2026-05-15/business-climate-residential-construction-germany-slumps
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI Continues to Stand for Virginians' Second Amendment Rights
WASHINGTON, May 16 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on May 15, 2026:
* * *
AFPI Continues to Stand for Virginians' Second Amendment Rights
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) has released the following statement from Knox Williams, AFPI Senior Fellow for American Justice, in response to a new Virginia anti-gun rights law that bans purchasing of AR-15s and standard capacity magazines, even by law-abiding citizens:
"Virginia has taken the draconian step of passing a law that bans ownership of the most common firearms in the country as well as the most
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 16 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on May 15, 2026:
* * *
AFPI Continues to Stand for Virginians' Second Amendment Rights
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) has released the following statement from Knox Williams, AFPI Senior Fellow for American Justice, in response to a new Virginia anti-gun rights law that bans purchasing of AR-15s and standard capacity magazines, even by law-abiding citizens:
"Virginia has taken the draconian step of passing a law that bans ownership of the most common firearms in the country as well as the mostcommon, standard capacity magazines owned by citizens," said Williams.
"While state officials fail to protect citizens from actual criminals, they pass a law that treats exercising Second Amendment rights like a criminal act.
This blatantly unconstitutional action highlights the fact that Virginia's anti-gun lawmakers will stop at nothing in their tyrannical quest to dismantle and ultimately eliminate the constitutional rights of Virginians."
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a God-given right that is explicitly protected by our nation's most sacred document--the U.S. Constitution.
AFPI condemns any attempt by a governing body to infringe upon the inalienable and constitutionally protected rights of all law-abiding Americans.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-continues-to-stand-for-virginians-second-amendment-rights
[Category: ThinkTank]
Rand: Stricter Cell Phone Policies Associated With Reductions in Student Phone Use
SANTA MONICA, California, May 15 (TNSrpt) -- Rand issued the following news release on May 13, 2026:
* * *
Stricter Cell Phone Policies Associated with Reductions in Student Phone Use
RAND study finds half of students still check their phones during class
*
Stricter school cell phone policies are associated with less student phone use during class, but even the most restrictive policies do not stop phone checking entirely, according to a new RAND report.
Even in relatively restrictive policy environments where students are not allowed to use their phones at all at school, half of students
... Show Full Article
SANTA MONICA, California, May 15 (TNSrpt) -- Rand issued the following news release on May 13, 2026:
* * *
Stricter Cell Phone Policies Associated with Reductions in Student Phone Use
RAND study finds half of students still check their phones during class
*
Stricter school cell phone policies are associated with less student phone use during class, but even the most restrictive policies do not stop phone checking entirely, according to a new RAND report.
Even in relatively restrictive policy environments where students are not allowed to use their phones at all at school, half of studentsreported checking their phones during their classes at least once per day. Roughly one-sixth said they did so more than five times per day. In the most lenient environments, roughly 8 in 10 students reported checking their phones during class at least once per day, including about one-third who did so frequently, according to the report.
"School cell phone policies and enforcement levels vary widely between schools, and this study gives us a clearer picture of how those differences relate to student behavior," said Melissa Diliberti, lead author of the study and an associate policy researcher at RAND. "While restrictive policies do appear to reduce cell phone use, what also matters is how strictly students perceive their teachers are enforcing the rules."
More than half of students (56%) reported trying at least one tactic to get around cell phone rules--from keeping phones in their pockets to using smartwatches as substitutes--but their perception of enforcement played a key role in their use of evasive tactics. Only 17% of students with very strict teachers reported keeping their phone in their pocket versus 50% of those who said their teacher was only a little strict.
Students indicated that cell phone policies are more restrictive and tightly enforced in middle school than in high school. Grade level also plays a role in both students' responsiveness to school policies and their participation in evasive tactics to hide their phone use.
According to the report, about 20% of 7th graders in schools with the most restrictive policy reported checking their phones during class, compared with about 80% of high school seniors in the same environment. Similarly, only 13% of middle schoolers reported trying to hide their phone in a hoodie or under their hair to get around cell phone rules versus 27% of juniors and seniors.
While the study identifies a relationship between policy restrictiveness and student phone use, it doesn't prove that stricter policies directly cause less phone checking. All findings are based on student self-reports.
"Restrictive policies probably won't eliminate students' cell phone use, but they might reduce it, especially when paired with firm enforcement," said Diliberti. "The challenge for schools and administrators is that the policies that students say work best also demand the most from educators who have to enforce them."
The study, How School Cell Phone Policy Strictness Shapes Student Phone Use, examines the association between common cell phone policies, their enforcement and student cell phone use. It draws on survey data from the RAND American Youth Panel, a nationally representative panel of middle and high school students, collected in December 2025. Based on research funded by Gates Foundation, it was conducted in the Education and Employment program of RAND Education, Employment, and Infrastructure.
Other authors of the report, How School Cell Phone Policy Strictness Shapes Student Phone Use, are Jonathan H. Cantor and Ryan K. McBain.
* * *
About RAND Education, Employment and Infrastructure
The RAND Education, Employment, and Infrastructure division aims to improve educational opportunity, economic prosperity, and civic life for all. For more information, visit www.rand.org/eei.
* * *
About RAND
RAND is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous.
* * *
REPORT: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA4700/RRA4742-2/RAND_RRA4742-2.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://www.rand.org/news/press/2026/05/stricter-cell-phone-policies-associated-with-reductions.html
[Category: ThinkTank]
Liberty In Action: $750,000 for American Airlines. Courtesy of Taxpayers
PHOENIX, Arizona, May 15 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Goldwater Institute posted the following news wrap up:
* * *
Liberty In Action: $750,000 for American Airlines. Courtesy of Taxpayers
*
The public purse is not a private piggy bank for government leaders to dip into to reward their favorite businesses. That's why the Goldwater Institute is now warning city officials in Columbia, Mo., that their promise to fork over taxpayer money to shore up American Airlines' bottom line violates the state's constitution.
To entice American to introduce daily, round-trip flights to Charlotte, N.C., Columbia
... Show Full Article
PHOENIX, Arizona, May 15 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Goldwater Institute posted the following news wrap up:
* * *
Liberty In Action: $750,000 for American Airlines. Courtesy of Taxpayers
*
The public purse is not a private piggy bank for government leaders to dip into to reward their favorite businesses. That's why the Goldwater Institute is now warning city officials in Columbia, Mo., that their promise to fork over taxpayer money to shore up American Airlines' bottom line violates the state's constitution.
To entice American to introduce daily, round-trip flights to Charlotte, N.C., Columbialeaders recently offered to provide the airline with up to $750,000 in taxpayer money if the new route isn't profitable every month. The problem: that arrangement violates the Missouri Constitution's Gift Clause, which prohibits cities from lending their credit or providing public money "to or in aid of any corporation." In a letter this week, Goldwater urged Columbia's leaders to take steps to ensure that only private money is used to pay any of the airline's invoices under the agreement.
Taxpayers should never shoulder the risk for a multi-billion-dollar company's for-profit business pursuits. The Goldwater Institute will continue to demand transparency to ensure that officials in Columbia and elsewhere abide by their state constitution.
Read more here (https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/taxpayers-shouldnt-be-responsible-for-airlines-losses/).
* * *
Oklahoma Stands Up for Right to Try, Homelessness Accountability
Supporters of patients' rights and government accountability in Oklahoma have new reasons to celebrate after Gov. Kevin Stitt signed two Goldwater Institute reforms into law.
In a win for rare-disease patients, Oklahoma is now the 18 th state to approve Goldwater's Right to Try for Individualized Treatments Act, a cutting-edge law that empowers patients to seek personalized treatments based on their own genetics. These treatments by definition cannot go through the Food and Drug Administration's outdated regulatory process in a timely manner. States like Oklahoma are ensuring that patients aren't denied access to potentially life-saving treatments due to bureaucratic red tape.
Oklahoma has also joined the growing list of states that have signed legislation modeled after the Goldwater Institute's Safe Neighborhoods Act. The law allows property owners to seek compensation when local governments allow homelessness to grow unchecked and harm neighborhoods. The premise is simple: when government fails to perform its most basic duties, law-abiding citizens shouldn't be left holding the bag.
The Goldwater Institute will continue fighting to pass Right to Try for Individualized Treatments and the Safe Neighborhoods Act across the nation.
Read more about Right to Try here (https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/oklahoma-signs-right-to-try-2-0-into-law/).
Read more about the Safe Neighborhoods Act here (https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/georgia-gov-kemp-signs-goldwaters-model-safe-neighborhoods-act/).
* * *
The Founders' Angst: Liberty and Slavery in a New Nation
How did America's slaveholding Founders really feel about slavery? While some contend they were hypocrites, those Founders expressed more angst, guilt, and self-awareness about their position than most might expect. That's the lesson from the Goldwater Institute's Timothy Sandefur in a new article in Reason.
In the article, adapted from his new book, "Proclaiming Liberty: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and the Declaration of Independence," Sandefur explains that America's Founders didn't deny that it was self-contradictory for them to hold slaves while also proclaiming liberty to be every person's birthright. Thomas Jefferson, for example, publicly opposed slavery throughout his life, pursued "freedom cases" in court, and unsuccessfully fought to embed a denunciation of slavery into the Declaration of Independence.
"What is actually remarkable about the patriots is the degree of candor with which they confessed that slavery clashed with their principles," Sandefur writes. "No patriot of stature ever defended the practice. And no considerable political movement in the English-speaking world had ever before condemned slavery as candidly and as often as the patriots did."
As we approach the nation's 250th birthday this July, it's important to remember that the patriots were not caricatures-they were living, breathing individuals with a great devotion to the new nation, despite their sometimes inconsistent positions on a great evil of their age.
Read more here (https://reason.com/2026/05/05/how-the-slaveholding-founders-really-felt-about-slavery/).
***
Original text here: https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/liberty-in-action-750000-for-american-airlines-courtesy-of-taxpayers/
Capital Research Center Issues Commentary: Florida Teacher Union Gets Beat by School Choice and Sues the Competition
WASHINGTON, May 15 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on May 14, 2026, by senior fellow Kali Fontanilla:
* * *
Florida teacher union gets beat by school choice and sues the competition
The Florida Education Association is suing to force feed unwanted schools on families that now have better options.
*
Imagine a corporation that has been running the only restaurant in town for decades. The food is mediocre at best, the service is painfully slow, and the tables are always sticky. Oh, and some customers have died after eating their food. But people keep showing up
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 15 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on May 14, 2026, by senior fellow Kali Fontanilla:
* * *
Florida teacher union gets beat by school choice and sues the competition
The Florida Education Association is suing to force feed unwanted schools on families that now have better options.
*
Imagine a corporation that has been running the only restaurant in town for decades. The food is mediocre at best, the service is painfully slow, and the tables are always sticky. Oh, and some customers have died after eating their food. But people keep showing upbecause there is nowhere else to eat, at least for this cheap. Then one day, new restaurants opened that have similar prices but better service and food. There is real competition in town. And now they are losing customers every week. Instead of hiring a better chef or cleaning the kitchen, they call their lawyer.
That's essentially what the Florida Education Association (FEA), Florida's largest teachers union, is doing right now.
The FEA filed a lawsuit in Leon County Circuit Court against the Florida Department of Education, alleging there is a disparity between traditional public schools and private schools receiving taxpayer vouchers that violates the state constitution. The press release was dramatic. The FEA announced that "parents, students, educators, school board members, civil rights organizations, and representative groups" had all joined the fight. Civil rights organizations. Plural. So I read the complaint.
The actual plaintiffs listed in the 39-page filing are: eight individual parents, a single Manatee County schoolteacher named Robert Lyons, and the Florida Education Association. That's it. Not one civil rights organization is named anywhere in the legal document. No NAACP. No Urban League. No one. This may be because many civil rights organizations know that one of the greatest ways to empower minority parents and students is school choice, and even those who have opposed school choice in the past have faced stiff opposition from minority communities. I am sure a plethora of black and brown parents would be greatly disappointed in these organizations for fighting to take away their ability to choose their child's school.
Speaking of empowerment, the complaint challenges the Family Empowerment Scholarship Program and Florida's charter school statute. The filing asks a court to declare the programs unconstitutional and block funding. To put this plainly, they want a judge to make 521,000 children go back to schools their families wanted to leave.
The constitutional lingo they are using here is Florida's requirement that the state provide a "uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high-quality system of free public schools." The FEA argues that the state has built a system in which publicly funded schools operate under very different rules, resulting in unequal service for students.
The suit asks the court to declare the current scholarship program unconstitutional and to block the flow of public money to private schools, which, according to the Big Labor plaintiffs, operate without the oversight or standards required of traditional public schools. Of course, this ignores the very point of standards and oversight, which is to provide a quality education, something that parents more than anyone else can judge best for their children. Thus the market competition itself fulfills the role of providing the greatest oversight: parents voting with their feet, fleeing failing schools. What's the point of oversight rules and regulations when public schools routinely fail to teach the basics to students? As the proverb goes, wisdom is justified by her children.
Going back to the restaurant analogy, this is like our failing, mediocre-at-best, and sometimes poisonous hole-in-the-wall restaurant suing on a technicality over food regulations, while few people want to eat there, and ignoring the fact that of those who do, many get sick. The gall of the FEA here is remarkable. Only 21 percent of Florida eighth-graders scored proficient or above in math, and just 25 percent in reading. The union wants to drag the state into court over oversight and accountability for private schools while their own product is failing most of the children sitting in them.
About a quarter of the state's education budget now goes to voucher programs, up from 12 percent in 2021. When demand for an alternative doubles in three years, something is wrong with the original product.
There were about 521,000 students enrolled in private and homeschooling options with voucher funds for the 2025-2026 cycle. More than half a million Florida families, given a real choice, chose something different. Florida Education Commissioner Anastasios Kamoutsas put it plainly:
Florida's a state that has over 2.8 million students. About 1.4 million of those students are participating in the Choice option because families are now empowered to choose the educational option that best meets their child's individualized needs. We will stand unapologetically convicted on that principle.
I spent 15 years in California public schools. I know what the union model depends on: parents who have no other option but to send their kids to public school. Families, especially working-class and minority families, sent their kids to the neighborhood school not because it was the best in the area, but because private schools are expensive. School choice broke that model.
In Florida, Governor DeSantis signed HB 1 in March 2023, eliminating income and tuition caps on the scholarship program and allowing any K-12 student to access a voucher of about $8,000 annually for private tuition or other education costs. Florida is the fourth state in the country with a universal voucher program.
The union's answer to this isn't "let's become a school that parents actually want." It's "let's get a judge to take away all the exit doors."
The sober reminder here is that the battle for school choice in any state is never won. The forces arrayed against it are patient, well-funded, and have eager lawyers on their side. If they lose in the legislature, they try to win it in a courtroom. If they lose there, they will wait for the next election cycle and try again. This is because their very livelihood and existence are threatened. That is why parents who finally have a choice for their children must be more committed to keeping it than the teachers unions that are hellbent on taking it away.
* * *
Kali Fontanilla
Kali is serving as CRC's Senior fellow, particularly focusing on topics related to K-12 public education.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/fea-voichers-lawsuit/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Critical Questions Q&A: Overturning the Endangerment Finding Threatens Americans' Health, Wealth, and Security
WASHINGTON, May 15 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following Critical Questions Q&A on May 14, 2026, involving program coordinator Caitlin Noe and fellow Michaela Simoneau, both of the Global Health Policy Center:
* * *
Overturning the Endangerment Finding Threatens Americans' Health, Wealth, and Security
On April 20, the rescission of the 2009 endangerment finding went into effect, eliminating the legal basis for the United States' regulatory action on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change. The scientific consensus that GHG emissions harm Americans'
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 15 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following Critical Questions Q&A on May 14, 2026, involving program coordinator Caitlin Noe and fellow Michaela Simoneau, both of the Global Health Policy Center:
* * *
Overturning the Endangerment Finding Threatens Americans' Health, Wealth, and Security
On April 20, the rescission of the 2009 endangerment finding went into effect, eliminating the legal basis for the United States' regulatory action on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change. The scientific consensus that GHG emissions harm Americans'health and welfare is well-established and growing, with air pollution from fossil fuels being responsible for an estimated 91,000 premature U.S. deaths and thousands of other chronic and acute conditions each year, generating major costs in terms of care and lost productivity. Despite the rhetoric surrounding the decision, the legal case does not challenge the scientific basis underlying the original rule. But while the case has been portrayed as a regulatory decision, debate has largely failed to recognize that this is fundamentally a public health issue--and policymakers are liable for trading short-term economic gain for generational damage to Americans' health.
Q1: Why does the endangerment finding matter for public health?
A1: The endangerment finding had long served as the regulatory basis for U.S. domestic climate policy, with its ruling rooted in protecting Americans' health from GHG emissions. In 2007, in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Supreme Court ruled that GHGs are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and directed the EPA to determine whether the gases threaten human health. In the 2009 endangerment finding, the EPA found that GHG emissions "in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations," due to their role in warming, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and shifting precipitation. The EPA was therefore required to regulate the six GHGs included in the ruling: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. The finding spurred the development of EPA regulations on GHG emissions for vehicles and later power plants and factories.
Twenty-four states and health and environmental groups have sued the Trump administration for overturning the endangerment finding, marking the beginning of court battles that will play out for years. The revocation of the rule is already having regulatory and commercial reverberations that will likely increase the scale of GHG emissions, but the true economic and geostrategic impact of this policy decision remains to be seen as industry leaders and other countries weigh how to respond. In the meantime, the risks to Americans' health from the direct and indirect consequences of climate change will continue to compound, even as the resulting toll may not be felt for decades.
Q2: How do greenhouse gas emissions impact Americans' health?
A2: Greenhouse gas emissions are already harming Americans' health. As GHG emissions are released into the atmosphere, the Earth's surface is warmed and the climate changes. This intensifies the risk of population exposures to extreme heat, air pollution, allergens, vector-borne disease, and extreme weather, all of which generate a host of acute and long-term cardiovascular, respiratory, and infectious conditions. Extreme weather events such as heat waves, wildfires, droughts, and flooding have become more frequent, increasing the risks to human health, including from delayed care, injury, illness, and death. Extreme heat is the leading weather-related cause of death in the United States, with deaths doubling between 1999 and 2023. There is increasing evidence that climate change also impacts mental health, nutrition, immune health, antimicrobial resistance, kidney disease, and pregnancy-related outcomes.
The revocation of the endangerment finding stands to increase these mounting challenges to health associated directly and indirectly with climate change. However, the long-term impacts of the change will not be immediately apparent. Even if emissions ended today, the resulting impacts of those pollutants on the climate would unfold over the next two to three decades. Attributing and quantifying the impact of climate change on health is a complicated and long-term process, as it contributes to chronic conditions that manifest over the lifetime. Despite a growing body of scientific and public health evidence on how GHGs harm human health, it is difficult to assess or connect such events to real-time policy decisions.
Q3: Does the new ruling challenge that GHGs are detrimental to health?
A3: No.
While the regulatory framework for U.S. climate policy has been repealed, the repeal does not change nor challenge the scientific foundation on which the endangerment finding was based, only the requirement to act. The scientific consensus remains the same: GHG emissions pose a danger to public health. Since 2009, the evidence for the current and future impacts of GHG emissions has only increased. Any further increase in GHG emissions goes against scientific evidence alerting to the dangers of emissions. The Trump administration had convened a panel to try to dispute the scientific claims underlying the ruling, but its composition and findings came under significant dispute as being unsubstantiated, and it was not referenced in the final rescission.
The final ruling focuses on cutting emissions standards for motor vehicles, the highest-emitting sector in the U.S. economy, with transportation broadly accounting for nearly 30 percent of U.S. emissions. The EPA has claimed that removing these regulations will generate $1.3 trillion for the U.S. economy in savings from cheaper new cars. But it also has contradicted its own arguments, acknowledging that there could be equally great long-term costs in higher fuel prices passed on to consumers, and maintaining rules regulating methane pollution under the Clean Air Act.
Over the next three decades, this regulatory change could lead to billions of extra tons of GHG emissions in the atmosphere. The administration's economic estimates fail to account for how these emissions could inflate the annual damages of extreme heat and other climate-induced impacts on public health, rising healthcare costs, declining labor productivity, lost agricultural yields, and infrastructure damage from increasingly frequent and costly natural disasters.
Q4: What will happen now that the ruling has been revoked?
A4: As the legal challenges unfold, domestic and multinational companies will have to make difficult decisions about how to proceed, with significant implications for the levels of GHGs emitted by the United States and the long-term health consequences for Americans. While regulating GHG emissions is no longer a legal requirement in the United States, companies will face questions from investors and exporters about their environmental impact and will still have to adhere to stricter standards in other countries where they do business. Industry may also be wary of changing its policies if companies have already made expensive investments to shift their supply chains to support greener technologies, and for fear that a future administration might reverse course. These considerations may ultimately have a mitigating effect on the impact of the ruling on industry behavior, the emissions that result, and their health consequences.
If the overturning of the endangerment finding withstands legal challenges, it would take years for a future administration to make and enforce a new determination and resume the regulation of GHGs. Congress could restore federal legal authority to regulate GHG emissions through new legislation, but such action seems unlikely given narrow majorities in both chambers and current political fragmentation, particularly in an election year. The acute health consequences for their constituents have thus far failed to resonate with a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers. Absent new legislation, more responsibility would fall on states to meet climate goals. This may increase volatility as states could go even further to introduce legal and regulatory challenges in the absence of overarching national rules, complicating the landscape for industry leaders as they face inconsistent laws across the country.
The endangerment finding has driven U.S. climate policy internationally by providing the scientific backing that supports international climate agreements and the domestic regulatory standards to meet those commitments. Under the George H.W. Bush administration in 1992, the United States signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the treaty that sets a legal framework for international negotiations to address climate change, under which the 2015 Paris Agreement was negotiated during the Obama administration. Under the 2015 agreement, the United States and nearly every other nation agreed to reduce their GHG emissions to limit global warming. Yet the United States has missed recent emissions targets due to inconsistent support from both sides of the aisle, and President Trump's presidencies have marked a new era, with his outright rejection of climate change as a "hoax" and withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and UNFCCC.
Q5: How might this U.S. action influence global policy on climate and health?
A5: Changes to U.S. domestic policy on GHG emissions standards mark a further retrenchment of U.S. climate policy and will have major implications for global health. Air pollution alone is associated with 6.7 million premature deaths annually around the world, with a disproportionate impact on children's long-term health and development. Effective global climate policy requires the United States to meet international climate goals because it is the world's second largest emitter of GHGs, behind only China, and has released the most GHG emissions since the Industrial Revolution--now those contributions are liable to increase. Shifting U.S. policy on climate and health signals an abdication of global responsibility and could erode international consensus around climate goals, influencing other countries to follow suit in decreasing their emissions standards and withdrawing from international commitments. The U.S. withdrawal from climate agreements such as the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement also indicates to lower- and middle-income nations that the United States will not financially aid their efforts to lower emissions, making it much more difficult for these countries to turn away from fossil fuel production and exports.
A lack of U.S. leadership in this area is part of a worrisome trend against climate and health action that will leave the United States behind in terms of health, scientific leadership, and geopolitical competitiveness. It accompanies funding cuts and staffing disruptions at the EPA--including the most recent proposal to cut its budget in half--and similar actions to reduce environmental health research at the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. To maintain competitiveness with the world's industrialized nations in Europe and East Asia, the United States needs to invest in research and development now; lagging industrial policy will take years to catch up. The United States' isolation from the international market could further cede the future of technology to Chinese companies investing heavily in electric vehicles and other green innovations, providing an opening for China to widen its lead as a renewable superpower and strike new diplomatic and economic deals. These technologies may have increased relevance as countries recognize the vulnerability of fossil fuel supply chains to geopolitical shocks and the potential benefits of diversifying energy sources and reducing their external dependencies. The Iran war has forced many countries to consider the benefits that transitioning to renewable energy may have to avoid fuel disruptions.
What is lost alongside the broader debate is that each of these diplomatic, industrial, and geostrategic decisions will shape health exposures for generations. U.S. policymakers should not be willing to accept the long-term damage to Americans' health from GHG emissions in exchange for short-term economic gain. The health and well-being of the U.S. population is the basis on which all other goals follow--a sicker nation has reduced economic output and commercial competitiveness, and ultimately is a national security vulnerability. It is in the U.S. interest to limit domestic and international emissions and reinstate the research and development practices, agreements, and regulations that help achieve that goal.
* * *
Caitlin Noe is a program coordinator with the Global Health Policy Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Michaela Simoneau is a fellow with the CSIS Global Health Policy Center.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/overturning-endangerment-finding-threatens-americans-health-wealth-and-security
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: How Are Perceptions of the U.S.-Mexico Relationship Changing?
WASHINGTON, May 15 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on May 14, 2026, by Andrew I. Rudman, non-resident senior associate with the Americas Program:
* * *
How Are Perceptions of the U.S.-Mexico Relationship Changing?
In late December 2025, Politico published a poll indicating that a majority of Canadians say the United States is "a negative force globally." In February of this year, another poll, this time conducted by Politico, showed that nearly 60 percent of Canadians view the United States as an unreliable ally. Further, a poll conducted
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 15 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on May 14, 2026, by Andrew I. Rudman, non-resident senior associate with the Americas Program:
* * *
How Are Perceptions of the U.S.-Mexico Relationship Changing?
In late December 2025, Politico published a poll indicating that a majority of Canadians say the United States is "a negative force globally." In February of this year, another poll, this time conducted by Politico, showed that nearly 60 percent of Canadians view the United States as an unreliable ally. Further, a poll conductedby Canadian polling firm Abacus Data revealed that 68 percent of Canadians have a negative impression of the United States, down 8 percent since 2025 and placing the United States at the bottom of the list of tested countries, below even China. Given the long-standing close relationship across the world's longest undefended border, this shift in attitude is troubling and disappointing.
Though a bit more nuanced, Mexican perceptions of the United States are comparable. The U.S.-Mexico bilateral relationship is one of our country's most dynamic, with an impact on the daily lives of all Americans unlike any other (even Canada). Dating back more than two centuries, the U.S.-Mexico relationship encompasses familial, cultural, and geographic elements in addition to commercial and investment links. Nevertheless, the intense focus on security issues at the presidential level somewhat influences the perceptions held by the Mexican public. Its views about the United States in general likely track closely with their views on whether and how the United States should engage to combat drug trafficking. A recently published poll revealed that while 44 percent of respondents had a favorable view of the United States, nearly half expressed unfavorable or very unfavorable views. Opinions about President Donald Trump were even less nuanced, with 81 percent of respondents expressing a negative view of the president in January 2026.
Despite Mexican society's negative views of the Trump administration, the U.S.-Mexico bilateral relationship is strong, with frequent interaction at all levels of government and civil society. There is an awareness, on both sides of the border, that bilateral cooperation is required to resolve several key policy challenges, including (1) the trafficking of drugs, people, and weapons; (2) the current review of the USCMA agreement, including North America's relationship with China; and (3) broader challenges related to health and the environment.
A series of conversations between the author and former and current Mexican government officials identifies several areas of concern that are likely to persist, even if the next U.S. administration chooses a different approach. In the words of one former Mexican health official, "the world is not going to go back to what we consider normal."
The concerns identified can be grouped into three broad categories and were addressed to a greater or lesser extent in each conversation.
Day-to-Day Relationships
Two of the most common descriptions of the relationship were uncertainty and lack of predictability. A diplomat formerly assigned to the Mexican embassy observed that interactions were less technical and more "based on vibes," adding that it was clear that State Department counterparts were unaware or uncertain about the policy and the chain of command. As a result, the Mexican embassy "didn't know how valid messages from the State Department were, or how long they would remain the stated policy of the U.S. government. It could change from one day to the next." The noteworthy change in U.S. attitudes also caught the attention of the former health official, who observed, "What's been amazing is the openness. So, frontal about things like Venezuela--we're after the oil. Wasn't expecting something so brash and unapologetic."
The potential for a unilateral attack by the United States against drug cartel targets in Mexico remains a concern for Mexican officials at all levels. While some think the likelihood is low, none were willing to discount the possibility entirely. Given Mexico's loss of over half of its territory in the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), the occupation of Veracruz in 1914, and uncertain levels of involvement of the CIA in Mexico since the start of the Cold War, the country and its people remain suspicious of U.S. military involvement.
A January 2026 poll published by El Financiero found that 79 percent of respondents opposed the entry of U.S. forces into Mexico to combat criminal groups in Mexico. Notably, following the deaths of two CIA agents and two Mexican police officers in a car crash in Chihuahua, President Claudia Sheinbaum's public comments focused on asking why the Americans were operating in Mexico, not whether they were in pursuit of legitimate targets or if their deaths were retaliatory. The focus on the authorization for the agents to be in Mexico rather than on the activity being interrupted is further underscored by the observation by a multilateral organization representative that in the event of unilateral action, "Even the very good cooperation that they have achieved now on security issues, which is at the highest point recognized by the generals here in the United States, by the FBI, by everyone, even that kind of cooperation will be in danger." It would be extremely difficult, in other words, for President Sheinbaum to ignore or downplay unilateral action
More generally, the former embassy official described the terrible uncertainty that surrounds every call between Presidents Trump and Sheinbaum and the worry that "this could be the call that ends badly and will completely transform the operative relationship."
Damage to the relationship extends beyond security matters or conversations at the presidential level. A former health official, speaking about prior collaboration between the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Mexican health and regulatory agencies, noted that the "CDC was highly regarded reference for the region and for Mexico in particular, and may still be. There were strong ties between CDC and Mexico; CDC provided guidance on vaccination strategies, for example. If that changes, what does it mean for cooperation on principles and guidelines? CDC was regarded as best source of information for decisionmaking."
Economic and Commercial Ties
With the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) up for review in July of this year, commercial ties are subject to considerable attention. While this would have been the case under any circumstance, the Trump administration's trade policy and aggressive application of tariffs have raised the stakes considerably. One former official noted that "countries will think twice about signing FTAs [free trade agreements] and creating dependence on the U.S.," and predicted, "much more protectionism in the future, even if governments offer FTAs, because there will be protected sectors and because trade partners aren't as trusted." Adding to the uncertainty and complexity of the USMCA review is the fact that "the negotiators, the USTR [U.S. trade representative], the pure technical negotiators, are under a lot more pressure on other stuff, on nontrade things." Similarly, a former Mexican ambassador to the United States observed that, "More people in Mexico are saying, 'you can't really trust the U.S. anymore. We had an agreement negotiated by the current president, and he's coming for more.'"
The former health official predicted that the shift in U.S. trade policy will also provide lessons to other countries regarding their own supply chain vulnerabilities, thus, "countries will think twice before letting strategic industries change because of the dependence on foreign goods. This will decrease welfare because countries will feel compelled to produce more on their own, even though it is not possible to produce everything. The result will be a less prosperous future."
On the Mexican side of the border, the former embassy official observed that, "Mexican firms are demoralized because of domestic conditions in Mexico but also because they cannot say 'at least the U.S. does everything better and we should be more like them.' They are demoralized by uncertainty and arbitrary decisionmaking."
The former ambassador noted that there are small groups, on both the left and the right of the political spectrum, which feel that, considering current U.S. politics, Mexico should "break up" with the United States. Another, likely small, group applauds President Trump's demands on Mexico, which they believe will allow (or force) President Sheinbaum to make needed legal and regulatory changes. Despite concerns, Mexican firms are eager to invest in the United States but fear the uncertainty of the investment climate. The former ambassador observed that the USMCA review was "a good time to strengthen North American relations, and it's a paradox, but we've never been closer to losing it than we are now."
Making a similar point, the multilateral organization representative noted that the United States is Mexico's largest market and will be for a long time. "It's a reliable partner in the sense that we buy a lot from the United States, inputs, and so on. We buy from the U.S., and that is always at better conditions than in any other country. But it has all this uncertainty that doesn't make it easy right now. Doesn't make it easy, and it doesn't feel good, to tell you the truth."
U.S. Reputation and Reliability
It is perhaps the longer-term impact of current U.S. political dynamics that raises the greatest concern. In the words of a former Mexican embassy staff member. "The idea that the U.S. is a less reliable partner than it used to be is already accepted everywhere. People no longer buy the idea that this is temporary and that if Trump loses, things will go back to the status quo ante. The United States no longer stands for a globalized world which you used to be able to take for granted." Similarly, a Mexican representative to a multilateral organization pointed out that many governments (not just Mexico's) are asking "if you can change things so rapidly from one year to the next, how can we be sure that there is not going to be another major shift like that (in the future)?"
For Mexico, the United States was traditionally seen as a model democracy and a standard to which Mexico aspired, though this is not the case at present. The January 2026 poll referenced earlier found that nearly two-thirds of respondents believe the United States is on the wrong path, while only 17 percent characterized it as the correct path. The multinational organization representative observed that, "The United States has been, in many ways, a reference for Mexico, in terms of the country that we want to build, the values that you want to build upon, this idea of democracy, of equality, of opportunities for people, rules, this idea of rule-based development. And all of a sudden, it's like it's not a reference anymore. Things are changing, and the values that we thought or the things that we identified with are no longer there, or they are being questioned."
The Sheinbaum administration, and Mexicans in general, are much more skeptical about dealing with the United States. It would be difficult for Mexico to fully decouple, given the depth and breadth of the relationship, but officials and policymakers, according to the former ambassador, will be more doubtful. Further, and perhaps even more important, he noted that current U.S. actions reinforce the narrative expressed by those who have always called the United States the "evil empire." "The way you say things is important," he continued. "It comes off as the U.S. wanting to run over everyone, and this gives the enemies an argument."
Conclusion
When speaking about the bilateral relationship, experts often observe that neither country chose its neighbor, and neither country can change the geographic reality that places us next to one another. The level of economic, cultural, and social integration also makes decoupling nearly impossible. However, the manner in which either neighbor behaves toward the other generally does have an impact on the quality of the relationship. Despite our history, the two countries have made considerable progress in deepening and broadening ties, especially since the negotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement in the early 1990s. Yet the approach taken by the Trump administration is likely to push our countries backward from being friends and collaborators back to being sometimes reluctant neighbors. The United States will likely be worse off as a result.
* * *
Andrew I. Rudman is a senior associate (non-resident) with the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-are-perceptions-us-mexico-relationship-changing
[Category: ThinkTank]
