Think Tanks
Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Manhattan Institute Issues Commentary to Wall Street Journal: Trump Struggles to Sell MAGA on H-1Bs
NEW YORK, Nov. 27 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Nov. 25, 2025, to the Wall Street Journal:* * *
Trump Struggles to Sell MAGA on H-1Bs
By Jason L. Riley
White House messaging is a mess, and the upside of immigration is getting lost in all the noise.
It has become unfashionable on the political right to say nice things about foreign nationals, even the ones who are here lawfully. Just ask Donald Trump, who has struggled to convince the MAGA base that legal immigration is a net benefit to America. Welcome to my world, Mr. President.
Part of the ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Nov. 27 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Nov. 25, 2025, to the Wall Street Journal: * * * Trump Struggles to Sell MAGA on H-1Bs By Jason L. Riley White House messaging is a mess, and the upside of immigration is getting lost in all the noise. It has become unfashionable on the political right to say nice things about foreign nationals, even the ones who are here lawfully. Just ask Donald Trump, who has struggled to convince the MAGA base that legal immigration is a net benefit to America. Welcome to my world, Mr. President. Part of theproblem has been White House inconsistency on the issue. Mr. Trump's position on illegal immigration isn't in doubt, but he can seem indecisive, even self-contradictory, when discussing migration policies for those who play by the rules. Last year, for example, he sided with Elon Musk, a staunch proponent of the H-1B work visa program typically used by foreign professionals in fields such as engineering, technology and medicine.
Continue reading the entire piece here at the Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/opinion/trump-struggles-to-sell-maga-on-h-1bs-3788449a?mod=author_content_page_1_pos_1)
* * *
Jason L. Riley is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, and a Fox News commentator. Follow him on Twitter here.
* * *
Original text here: https://manhattan.institute/article/trump-struggles-to-sell-maga-on-h-1bs
[Category: ThinkTank]
Hudson Institute Issues Commentary to New York Post: America Is No Longer Left vs. Right: It's The Resentful vs. the Resilient
WASHINGTON, Nov. 27 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Nov. 26, 2025, to the New York Post:* * *
America Is No Longer Left vs. Right: It's The Resentful vs. the Resilient
By Liel Leibovitz
American politics is awfully confusing these days.
You've got pundits like Tucker Carlson, pretending to be conservatives yet criticizing President Trump's policies, siding with Iran, and fawning over Vladimir Putin.
You've got newspapers like the New York Times, pretending to be progressive ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 27 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Nov. 26, 2025, to the New York Post: * * * America Is No Longer Left vs. Right: It's The Resentful vs. the Resilient By Liel Leibovitz American politics is awfully confusing these days. You've got pundits like Tucker Carlson, pretending to be conservatives yet criticizing President Trump's policies, siding with Iran, and fawning over Vladimir Putin. You've got newspapers like the New York Times, pretending to be progressiveyet celebrating Hitler-loving creeps like Nick Fuentes.
What's going on?
To figure it out, forget the old and irrelevant distinctions between left and right, or between Republicans and Democrats.
The only fault line that matters these days is between resentment and resilience.
On one side are those who blame everything on everyone else.
Can't land the sort of high-paying job you're convinced you deserve? Feeling priced out of the tony Brooklyn neighborhood you'd love to call home?
No worries! It's not your fault for not being smart enough, or not working hard enough, or failing to understand that a four-bedroom apartment on a tree-lined street right off Prospect Park isn't a universal human right.
There's nothing you can do, goes the gospel of resentment, because you don't really have any agency at all.
The game is rigged, and you're not in control of your destiny.
You are, as Bob Dylan once neatly put it, only a pawn in their game, the "they" being the dastardly billionaires who must be crushed for the rest of us to breathe free.
This whiny, supine, and fundamentally un-American way of thinking gave us Zohran Mamdani, whose ideas revolve around the magical solution of making everything free somehow.
It also gave us Fuentes, whose preoccupations are just the same but whose prescriptions are much darker and more ruinous.
These two young men may claim different ideological affiliations, but they've much more in common than they'd like to admit -- including support for the Palestinians, world champions at blaming everyone but themselves for their terrible choices.
Both believe America is rotten and unfair, and that the only way to fix it is to burn it all down first and worry about the rest later.
On the other side of this divide are resilient folks who have very little time and patience for the language and logic of victimhood.
They know we have problems, but they also understand that this is America, and the one key feature of this great and godly country is that it gives everyone a fair shot.
Don't like the way your employer is practicing partisan politics rather than journalism? Quit, start your own publication, and if you're good enough (hey there, Bari Weiss!), you'll soon have a much more valuable media company on your hands.
Have a decent idea and the skill to pull it off? Build something worthwhile (here's looking at you, WhatsApp founder Jan Koum!) and, who knows, you might just sell it for tens of billions of dollars one day.
If you think these are just exceptions to the rule, fairy tales that have little to teach us about real life in real America, take a quick look at the stats: Adjusting for both inflation and changes in household size, the median income in America has soared by 40% since 1970, reaching a historical peak of $83,730 in 2023.
Which, put bluntly, means that, all yowling about affordability aside, things in America are looking kind of rosy.
But don't bother America's spiteful sore losers with such good tidings.
While the resilience crowd focuses on building -- strong families, thriving communities, and successful companies -- the resentment crowd harbors dark fantasies about punishing their enemies and rewards any blowhard who promises to make the guilty pay.
One side believes that you deserve everything and must work for nothing; the other, that you deserve nothing and must work for everything.
Which side will win? To answer the question, grab a book of American history and turn it to just about any page.
This nation had known its fair share of shadowy figures who were experts at playing the blame game.
From Father Coughlin to Louis Farrakhan, we've had no dearth of demagogues who rose by telling their followers that their lives, their liberty, and their happiness had all been stolen by nefarious others, usually the Jews.
These villains have all vanished from the limelight because America, bless it, was founded on sturdier principles.
America's first millionaire, Benjamin Franklin, captured them best.
"I find that the harder I work," he reportedly quipped, "the more luck I seem to have."
Remember that the next time some bitter bum tells you his misfortune is all your fault.
Read in The New York Post (https://nypost.com/2025/11/25/opinion/america-is-no-longer-left-vs-right-its-the-resentful-vs-the-resilient/).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/politics-government/america-no-longer-left-vs-right-its-resentful-vs-resilient-liel-leibovitz
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center: Socialism and the Soul of the Packard Foundation
WASHINGTON, Nov. 27 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on Nov. 26, 2025:* * *
Socialism and the soul of the Packard Foundation
How aligned is the foundation's grantmaking with the values of its founder?
By Robert Stilson
During the runup to the 1992 presidential election, Hewlett-Packard (HP) co-founder David Packard publicly derided the Democratic Party as the "party of socialism." Yet in 2020, nearly a quarter-century after Packard's passing, the foundation spending his fortune committed $20 million to a nonprofit fund that promotes "an anti-capitalist politic."
This ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 27 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on Nov. 26, 2025: * * * Socialism and the soul of the Packard Foundation How aligned is the foundation's grantmaking with the values of its founder? By Robert Stilson During the runup to the 1992 presidential election, Hewlett-Packard (HP) co-founder David Packard publicly derided the Democratic Party as the "party of socialism." Yet in 2020, nearly a quarter-century after Packard's passing, the foundation spending his fortune committed $20 million to a nonprofit fund that promotes "an anti-capitalist politic." Thisis not the only recent example of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation making major grants to promoters of left-wing socioeconomic policies. That said, the full picture of the Packard Foundation's grantmaking is more complicated. It reflects a combination of causes that David Packard would have doubtless supported, alongside others about which he may have had reservations, or outright opposed.
Background
***
Packard was a longtime board member at both AEI and the Hoover Institution, two venerable conservative think tanks to which he was also a major donor.
***
With $8 billion in net assets, the Packard Foundation is now one of Big Philanthropy's bigger philanthropies. It was established in 1964 by David Packard and his wife Lucile. Bill Hewlett, the other half of Hewlett-Packard's founding duo, set up the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation two years later in 1966. As of 2023, the two foundations had combined net assets of $21 billion, with Hewlett accounting for approximately 62 percent of that total. As recently as 2003, however, the Packard Foundation was the larger of the two.
David Packard did not place any firm restrictions on his foundation's grantmaking, though he made his personal philanthropic interests reasonably clear during his life. These notably included environmental conservation and higher education--particularly at his alma mater of Stanford University. Science and the arts were also priorities, but so was the much more controversial goal of curtailing the global human population. In a letter he reportedly wrote to his children during the 1980s entitled "Some Random Thoughts About the Packard Foundation," which has never been made public, Packard was said to have singled out population control as the issue which he felt should be the foundation's "highest priority." A New York Times profile written shortly after his death in 1996 said that David Packard "had an engineer's interest in the sciences, as well as an outdoorsman's interest in conservation and a humanist's interest in education," while Lucile "leaned more toward programs to help children, the sick and the poor."
Packard was a Republican--he served as deputy secretary of defense in the Nixon Administration and was a major supporter of Gerald Ford, even serving for a time as the latter's 1976 campaign finance committee chair. During the Reagan Administration he chaired the so-called Packard Commission, created to study administration and procurement within the Department of Defense. Longtime American Enterprise Institute (AEI) president Chris DeMuth described Packard's politics as "a little hard to characterize...one should think of him as a conservative in California Goldwater way--libertarian rather than social conservative. He was not a highly political person, but was an engineer and a businessman first."
Packard was a longtime board member at both AEI and the Hoover Institution, two venerable conservative think tanks to which he was also a major donor. He has been credited with personally saving AEI from dire financial straits in 1986, putting up half of the $1.8 million necessary to keep the organization solvent while it undertook what would ultimately prove to be a successful turnaround. According to a 1998 Wall Street Journal profile, even after Packard agreed to conduct his philanthropy through the Packard Foundation at the request of his three daughters (who sat on the foundation's board and disapproved of his Republican politics), he "quietly wrote personal checks to Stanford University's conservative Hoover Institution, hoping his daughters wouldn't find out."
Indeed, Packard was an ardent supporter of free enterprise, with the Philanthropy Roundtable describing him as "a firm believer in the power of free markets to enrich society as a whole." In a 1973 speech to the Scientific Apparatus Makers Association, he lauded free-market capitalism for having "produced more benefits for more people than any other economic system. I do not believe a better economic system can be devised."
Packard warned, however, that it was increasingly coming under attack from those "who sincerely believe the government should have a larger role in managing the economy--people who sincerely believe socialism is preferable to private free enterprise." Packard spoke of members of Congress "who do not believe that equality of opportunity is enough. They believe that all people should be assured equality of results--that the wealth of this nation should be spread equally among its citizens." He feared that unless such arguments were successfully countered, future generations would fail to inherit the prosperity that American free enterprise had engendered.
In 2023, the Packard Foundation reported net assets of $8 billion, with its endowment invested across a diversified range of public and private equities, marketable alternatives, and real assets--a sophisticated portfolio typical of a very large private foundation.
This was not always the case. According to George Anders--as told in the book How Great Philanthropists Failed by the late Capital Research Center senior fellow Martin Morse Wooster--David Packard had left specific instructions not to diversity the foundation's investments. Instead, his intent was for it simply to remain invested in HP stock.
By the time Packard died in 1996, his foundation already held almost 25 million shares in HP. He willed most of his estate--more than 46 million additional shares--to the foundation upon his death. The New York Times reported at the time that this made the Packard Foundation the company's largest shareholder, holding just over 13 percent of all outstanding shares. As of May 1996, its stake in HP was valued at over $7.2 billion (nearly $15 billion in 2025 dollars)--one of the largest philanthropies in the world at that time.
This investment concentration worked just fine, so long as HP stock performed well. But it became problematic during the tumultuous aftermath of the late 1990s internet-driven stock market bubble, and HP's controversial acquisition of Compaq in 2002. In 2001 the foundation reported total net assets of $9.37 billion at the start of the year, and $5.6 billion at the end. A September 2002 article in the Los Angeles Times reported that the foundation's endowment had dropped from $15 billion to $3.8 billion in barely two years, and that it had been forced to substantially reduce both its staff and grantmaking.
The Packard Foundation's board voted to diversify its endowment in 2003, and it hired a chief investment officer to "build out an institutional-quality portfolio" in 2007. In 2023, it made $367 million worth of grants. That year, the foundation paid its chief investment officer Kimberly Sargent more than $3.1 million in compensation, well over three times what it paid its president and CEO. The considerably larger Hewlett Foundation, which made over $590 million in grants that year, paid its own chief investment officer more than $5.4 million.
Current activities
***
Some of its largest current grantees remain those championed by David and Lucile during their lives.
***
Today, the Packard Foundation's vision is "a just and equitable world where both people and nature flourish," and it argues that "only when systems are fair and inclusive can we find and sustain solutions to the biggest challenges today and into the future." The foundation emphasizes diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in all of its activities, and has committed to producing net-zero carbon emissions from its operations by 2040.
Nancy Lindborg is the foundation's president and CEO. She previously served in that same capacity at the United States Institute for Peace, and before that was an assistant administrator at USAID during the Obama Administration. Lindborg was also formerly the president of Mercy Corps. The Packard Foundation's board chair is Jason Burnett, a grandson of David and Lucile and one of several Packard family members currently serving as trustees. Burnett is CEO of the emissions tracking company Crosswalk Labs and was formerly the mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California.
The Packard Foundation's website features a detailed database of grants awarded since 2022, and all following numbers reflect database totals as of mid-November 2025. Some of its largest current grantees remain those championed by David and Lucile during their lives. Since 2022, the foundation has given more than $100 million to the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children's Health, which in turn supports the Lucile Packard Children's Hospital and the Stanford University School of Medicine. The children's hospital, which opened in 1991, was originally established with a $70 million gift from the Packards in 1986 and was of great personal importance to Lucile.
By far the Packard Foundation's largest grantee since 2022 has been the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, to which it has awarded $238.6 million. An additional $71.2 million was awarded to the aquarium itself through the associated Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation. David Packard was deeply involved with planning and financing both the aquarium (which opened in 1984) and the research institute (which he founded in 1987). According to Wooster, it was the single largest philanthropic project Packard undertook during his life. His daughter Julie Packard remains the aquarium's executive director to this day, in addition to her role as vice chair of the Packard Foundation's board of trustees. The aquarium attracts approximately two million visitors annually.
Prominent universities also receive substantial funding from the Packard Foundation. Since 2022, the largest recipients have been Johns Hopkins University ($7.7 million), Stanford University ($7.3 million), the University of California, Berkeley ($6.6 million), and the University of Pennsylvania ($4.8 million). Much of the foundation's higher education grantmaking--but by no means all of it--is connected to the Packard Fellowships for Science and Engineering program, which makes 20 awards of $875,000 annually to support the research of "the nation's most promising early-career scientists and engineers." The program arose from David Packard's personal interest in these fields, and the foundation has awarded more than $500 million through it since 1988.
Abortion grants
***
Ipas works to build what it calls a "sustainable abortion ecosystem" in countries where it operates.
***
Though a lifelong Republican, some of David Packard's views were atypical of what today would be considered broadly conservative. One prominent example is abortion, which Packard considered a necessary mechanism for global population control. Abortion has accordingly remained a core focus for the Packard Foundation, which evidently sees no contradiction with its professed priority of ensuring that "moms, expectant parents, and children have the support they need to be healthy and thrive." The foundation did, however, delete the word "population" from what had until 2020 been known as its Population and Reproductive Health program, because it felt it invoked "colonialist or authoritarian connotations."
The Packard Foundation played an important role in making the abortion drug mifepristone available in the United States by extending a $10 million loan to Danco Laboratories, so that that company could market the drug after receiving FDA approval in 2000. The foundation has since worked to make the drug cheaper and more widely available, characterizing it as part of the basis for "a just and equitable society."
Packard makes substantial grants to a wide variety of groups working to expand abortion access both domestically and internationally. From 2023-2025, it awarded $15 million to the Collaborative for Gender + Reproductive Equity, a fiscally sponsored project of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors. The collaborative's purpose is to fund groups that are "pioneering new approaches across issue silos to defend gender, reproductive, and racial equity." Abortion is a central priority for the collaborative, which it attempts to connect to other identity politics-driven issues through supporting public policy activism, litigation, and leadership/organizational development. In 2018, the Packard Foundation committed $50 million in seed money for the collaborative, which has since been joined by the Ford Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, the Freedom Together Foundation, and more.
Packard awarded more than $11.5 million to Ipas from 2023-2025, to help expand access to abortion globally--particularly in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Ipas works to build what it calls a "sustainable abortion ecosystem" in countries where it operates. This includes building political support, de-stigmatizing abortion in local cultures, and ensuring that abortion providers are supplied and financed. Ultimately, Ipas aims for universal abortion access. In 2024, more than 640,000 women worldwide received "abortion care" at an Ipas-supported facility.
Another $4.45 million from 2022-2025 was awarded for similar purposes to MSI United States, an affiliate of MSI Reproductive Choices. MSI was previously known as Marie Stopes International, but changed its name in 2020 because Marie Stopes (the person) had during her life "expressed many opinions which are in stark contrast to MSI's core values and principles"--the most glaring of which being her support for eugenics and sterilization.
Of the $12.2 million that Packard awarded to the Arabella Advisors-managed[*] Hopewell Fund from 2022-2025, just less than half was earmarked for its Galvanize USA project, which works to persuade women to support left-of-center positions on divisive sociopolitical issues, including (but not limited to) abortion. Galvanize USA's founder and executive director is Jackie Payne, who formerly served as director of government relations for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America--a group which has also received $6.1 million from Packard since 2022, plus millions more for its local branches. Another $1.5 million to the Hopewell Fund was designated for the Resources for Abortion Delivery project, which directly funds abortion providers.
The activist group All Above All has received $800,000 from Packard since 2022, including grants made while it was housed as a project of the New Venture Fund. All Above All supports totally unrestricted--indeed, actively incentivized--abortion through policies such as mandatory insurance coverage (including for illegal immigrants), requiring public universities to make free abortion available to students, eliminating legal restrictions on youth abortions, repealing fetal personhood laws, and generally abolishing "any state level abortion bans or restrictions."
Environmental grants
***
Packard awarded $4.23 million to the Greenpeace Fund . . . one of three affiliated Greenpeace entities which in 2025 were found civilly liable for a combined $667 million (later reduced to $345 million) for their role in the sometimes-destructive Dakota Access Pipeline protests ...
***
Another personal philanthropic interest for David Packard was the natural environment, though Wooster noted that "much about his views on the environment remains unknown" and may well have been tied (at least partially) to his concerns about the global population. He was certainly a dedicated conservationist, and during his life also expressed concerns about climate change. In addition to its significant support for the Monterey Bay Aquarium, the Packard Foundation currently supports a wide range of environmental groups and funding intermediaries--several of which are among its very largest grantees.
From 2022-2025, the foundation made $51.6 million in grants to the ClimateWorks Foundation. More than half of this was earmarked for the Climate and Land Use Alliance, a philanthropic collaborative focused on protecting global tropical forests, primarily in Central and South America, and Indonesia. The Climate and Land Use Alliance believes that "disrupting existing power structures and supporting diverse leaders and inclusive movements can boldly move us toward a just and climate-resilient world." It makes grants to "support those working to change the systems and power structures that drive tropical deforestation and undermine people's rights and well-being."
Another $38.9 million from 2022-2024 was granted to Climate Breakthrough, itself a grantmaker that funds the work of those pursuing the "boldest new initiatives for large-scale policy, economic, and social transformation to address the climate crisis." Past awardees have included Bruce Nilles, currently vice president of Climate Imperative and formerly managing director at the Rocky Mountain Institute, head of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign, and staff attorney at Earthjustice. Former Emerald Cities Collaborative president and CEO Denise Fairchild received an award in 2021, while Bold Alliance founder and executive director (and Nebraska Democratic Party chair) Jane Kleeb received one in 2023.
The Packard Foundation awarded nearly $28 million from 2023-2025 to RF Catalytic Capital, a Rockefeller Foundation spinoff that helps foundations, governments, and other funders coordinate and combine their support for joint projects. Nearly all of Packard's grants were earmarked for a project called Invest in Our Future, a collaborative aimed at "accelerating America's clean energy economy." Other Invest in Our Future partners include the Hewlett Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, and the Schusterman Family Philanthropies.
From 2022-2025, Packard awarded $4.23 million to the Greenpeace Fund, the 501(c)(3) branch of the well-known eco-activist group. The Greenpeace Fund was one of three affiliated Greenpeace entities which in 2025 were found civilly liable for a combined $667 million (later reduced to $345 million) for their role in the sometimes-destructive Dakota Access Pipeline protests of 2016-2017. (As of November 2025, final judgment in the case has not been issued and Greenpeace has vowed to appeal.) Most of the Packard Foundation's grant money was designated for Greenpeace's Beyond Seafood campaign, which targets what the group calls "Big Seafood"--companies that it alleges are "raking in the profits whilst depleting our oceans and profiting from the severe labour issues in their supply chain."
The Resources Legacy Fund was awarded more than $15 million by Packard from 2022-2025. Nearly 60 percent of this was earmarked to support the California Environmental Equity Initiative, a program designed to build "capacity, power, and leadership among younger, more ethnically diverse leaders, organizations, and coalitions advocating for environmental outcomes that benefit their communities and better meet the needs of California's most marginalized residents." Much of the remainder was routed to ocean conservation projects.
Other noteworthy environmental grants awarded by Packard since 2022 include $7.6 million to the Energy Foundation China and $5.95 million to its former affiliate, the United States Energy Foundation. The European Climate Foundation received $7.4 million, while the nonprofit Multiplier received more than $7.3 million for a variety of projects. The Packard Foundation gave more than $2.1 million to the Environmental Defense Fund, more than $2 million to the Natural Resources Defense Council, and $940,000 to Earthjustice. Another $1.4 million was earmarked for the Hive Fund for Climate and Gender Justice--a grantmaking intermediary itself housed at the Windward Fund--which has paid out more than $100 million since 2020 in furtherance of its vision to "transition from dirty to clean energy in ways that center justice, redistribute power, and create healthier, safer, and more prosperous communities."
Left-wing activism
***
Specific Black Liberation Pooled Fund grantees have included the far-left Movement for Black Lives, which among many other things demands a "radical and sustainable redistribution of wealth" . . .
***
Where the Packard Foundation appears to have drifted rather more substantially from David Packard's ideological worldview is through its support for left-wing activist groups that oppose (or seek to markedly restrain) the American free enterprise system which he himself so passionately supported, and which created the very wealth that endowed and continues to perpetuate his foundation. In many cases, these groups weave the explicit prioritization of identity-based immutable characteristics--chiefly race and ethnicity--into their broader socioeconomic agenda. Not infrequently, that agenda veers distinctly in the socialist direction. Indeed, the Packard Foundation now makes a point to "champion equity" through its grantmaking, which it defines as "the equality of outcomes across different identities achieved through opportunity and access to information, resources, systems, and power."
Like much of the left-of-center nonprofit sector, the Packard Foundation underwent a significant pivot beginning in 2020. That summer, amid the ascendent Black Lives Matter movement, then-board chair David Orr (a grandson of David Packard) wrote that since he believed that "police violence against Black people is only one way racism manifests itself in this country," the foundation would immediately begin evaluating the supposed racial impacts of its grantmaking. At the same time, he acknowledged that his statement was "taking up space in a moment when we should all be listening to Black voices."
Orr subsequently announced that the "resources and energy of the Packard Foundation" would henceforth be focused on promoting "justice and equity for Black people and people of color," and that the foundation would begin centering "justice and equity in grantmaking outcomes." Fueled by a belief in "the growing fragility of the U.S., with its history of racism, inequity, and injustice, and a democracy increasingly under threat," by 2022 the foundation had adopted a new official operational vision: "a just and equitable world where both people and nature flourish."
Some of the foundation's resultant grants have supported deeply radical organizations. From 2020-2021, Packard gave $20 million to the Solidaire Network. The money was earmarked for the Black Liberation Pooled Fund, so that it could "provide immediate resources to Black-led social change organizations, including leaders and organizers within the Movement for Black Lives." That fund in turn supported grantees focused on "a Black queer feminist framework, an abolitionist lens and/or an anti-capitalist politic," alongside those "working at critical and creative intersections such as land and queer justice and how Black liberation struggles must challenge toxic notions of masculinity."
Specific Black Liberation Pooled Fund grantees have included the far-left Movement for Black Lives, which among many other things demands a "radical and sustainable redistribution of wealth" and "an end to the exploitative privatization of natural resources--including land and water" through a bevy of largely race-driven government and corporate interventions; the Anti-Police Terror Project, which supports abolishing the police; Black Feminist Future, which argues that "Black feminisms explain how systems of oppression and power like white supremacy, patriarchy, capitalism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc. are both interconnected and systemic;" and the Black Land and Liberation Initiative, which aims to use "land-based reparations" to create "Black self-determining land-based economies."
Other groups that Packard has supported through its U.S. Racial Justice Initiative include Black Futures Lab ($1.33 million from 2024-2025), which was founded by Marxist Black Lives Matter leader Alicia Garza. According to Garza, "Black lives can't matter under capitalism. They're like oil and water." The activist group Race Forward received $500,000 from Packard in 2025, while the Color of Change Education Fund received $1.17 million from 2022-2025. Color of Change supports defunding what it calls the "violent institution" of police.
From 2022-2024, Packard awarded just under $1.3 million to the Center for Law and Social Policy, a group which contends that "poverty in America is inextricably tied to systemic racism." It defines racial equity as "intentionally centering the role of race and the deeply rooted history in the United States of systemic racism toward communities of color." It also believes that "anti-LGBTQIA+ legislation advances the underlying ideological and political goals of white supremacy," all with the objective of maintaining "a white, cis-gendered society, one that dehumanizes and erases the identities of a wide range of young people."
The Packard Foundation has awarded $6.5 million since 2022 to PolicyLink, which at $66.5 million in total 2023 revenues has quietly become one of the better-funded left-wing advocacy groups in the country. PolicyLink sees a "duty to transform our democracy and economy, closing the chasm between those for whom this nation has always worked and those who have yet to reap its benefits." It calls for government rent control and guaranteed "publicly-financed jobs for everyone who wants to work," alongside the redistribution of real estate to "historically marginalized communities" so that "homes and land are for the people, not commodities."
PolicyLink contends that the "narrow profit-driven" priorities of American business have "come at the expense of the public interest and the fairness and stability of our economy and democracy." It faults corporations for "maximizing profit and shareholder returns," and advocates for new corporate governance structures that would require executives to deprioritize shareholder interests in favor of a broader universe of "stakeholders." PolicyLink also suggests that corporations might voluntarily "adopt policies and practices that integrate equity and social responsibility within investments, profit distributions, and tax management practices"--for instance, by ceasing to pursue "tax minimization and avoidance strategies" that cut down on government revenue.
Elsewhere, PolicyLink CEO Michael McAfee has written that the federal government must become "explicitly anti-racist" through "a governing agenda centered on racial equity," such as the development of what he called "a Black and Brown federal budget." In 2020, McAfee and PolicyLink founder Angela Glover Blackwell wrote a New York Times op-ed arguing that "banks and all corporations must use their outsize power to end systemic racism" through adopting new race-based business practices, such as eliminating bank fees and canceling consumer debt for black customers, and offering black homebuyers interest-free mortgages and black-owned businesses interest-free loans.
As a major PolicyLink funder, does the Packard Foundation endorse such discriminatory practices?
From 2022-2025, Packard awarded more than $1.7 million to Community Change, a group which works to "bridge the worlds of grassroots organizing and progressive politics." It supports government-guaranteed income and other policies that it believes will "abolish poverty in the United States"--something the group considers necessary in order to undo "the violence of systemic racism, misogyny, and white supremacy in our country." During the Biden Administration, Community Change called for a "New Deal for Housing Justice" to expand the federal government's role in the housing sector with an explicit emphasis on "racial equity, increasing opportunity, and guaranteeing homes for all."
Since 2022, Packard has given $720,000 to the Western Center on Law and Poverty, which believes "eradicating poverty requires attacking the systems that perpetuate inequities for marginalized groups," alongside ensuring "affordable housing for all" and "equitable and affordable healthcare and a true safety net for those in need." In 2023, the Packard Foundation even gave $72,000 to Black Lives Matter Phoenix Metro, which seeks "Black liberation" through "the abolition of the carceral state, racial capitalism, colonialism, climate change, cis-heteropatriarchy and anti-Black violence."
Of the $4.1 million that the Packard Foundation has given to the Tides Center since 2022, $475,000 was earmarked for End Poverty In California, a group whose public policy blueprint calls for economic redistributionism at a level sufficient to "establish minimum income and wealth floors" for the state's population. The group's founder, former Stockton mayor (and current Democratic state lieutenant governor candidate) Michael Tubbs, also founded the national Mayors for A Guaranteed Income.
Another $805,000 granted to the Tides Center was designated for the International Corporate Accountability Roundtable, which--remarkably, given the Packard Foundation's origins--asserts that "corporate power sits at the root of nearly every major human rights issue of our time." It criticizes corporations for creating shareholder value instead of prioritizing what it claims would be "more socially productive uses" for earnings--even blaming the profit motive itself for the supposedly malign influence of business in American society. The roundtable recommends (among many other things) that large companies should be forced to obtain a federal charter so that the government can more comprehensively regulate their operations.
What might David Packard have said about that?
Past and future
The Packard Foundation states that its values "deeply reflect the history and philosophy of the Packard family's approach to philanthropy." It certainly does count for much that the foundation has maintained significant funding for the philanthropic causes which were so important to David and Lucile Packard during their lives. At the same time, it seems very likely that David Packard would have opposed--and stridently so--the left-wing big government/anti-capitalist rhetoric embraced by what is evidently a meaningful number of his foundation's current grantees. David Packard died nearly 30 years ago. If this trend continues, what will his foundation look like three decades hence?
***
[*] After this report was produced, Arabella Advisors announced it was ceasing operations and that the nonprofit network it ran was being reorganized and rebranded under new names and management. Please follow the Capital Research Center for updates.
* * *
Robert Stilson
Robert runs several of CRC's specialized projects.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/socialism-and-the-soul-of-the-packard-foundation/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Ifo Institute: German Export Expectations Fall - November 2025
MUNICH, Germany, Nov. 26 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release:* * *
German Export Expectations Fall (November 2025)
Sentiment in the German export industry has taken a further hit. The ifo Export Expectations fell to -3.4 points in November, down from +2.2 points in October. "There has been hardly any movement in the export industry for months," says Klaus Wohlrabe, Head of Surveys at ifo. "The mood is mixed at best. There are still no signs of a sustained recovery."
After two hopeful months, optimism in the automotive industry has evaporated again. Companies are expecting a ... Show Full Article MUNICH, Germany, Nov. 26 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release: * * * German Export Expectations Fall (November 2025) Sentiment in the German export industry has taken a further hit. The ifo Export Expectations fell to -3.4 points in November, down from +2.2 points in October. "There has been hardly any movement in the export industry for months," says Klaus Wohlrabe, Head of Surveys at ifo. "The mood is mixed at best. There are still no signs of a sustained recovery." After two hopeful months, optimism in the automotive industry has evaporated again. Companies are expecting adecline in exports. This also applies to the food industry and the metal industry. However, manufacturers of electrical equipment are optimistic: They expect their international sales to increase. This is also true for the leather industry. Little is happening at the moment in mechanical engineering and among manufacturers of electronic and optical products. Their export business remains largely constant.
* * *
More information
Survey (https://www.ifo.de/en/facts/2025-11-25/german-export-expectations-fall-november-2025)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2025-11-25/german-export-expectations-fall-november-2025
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: Minnesota's High Employment Level Slows Its Per Capita GDP Growth Rate
GOLDEN VALLEY, Minnesota, Nov. 26 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary:* * *
Minnesota's high employment level slows its per capita GDP growth rate
By John Phelan
Yesterday, I looked at why Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita growth in Minnesota has ranked 38th out of 50 states since 2014. Using the framework and data from our recent report "Accounting for Growth: Measuring the sources of per capita economic growth at the state level," which "broke down the growth rate ... Show Full Article GOLDEN VALLEY, Minnesota, Nov. 26 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary: * * * Minnesota's high employment level slows its per capita GDP growth rate By John Phelan Yesterday, I looked at why Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita growth in Minnesota has ranked 38th out of 50 states since 2014. Using the framework and data from our recent report "Accounting for Growth: Measuring the sources of per capita economic growth at the state level," which "broke down the growth rateof per capita GDP into its components; the per capita growth rate in human capital, physical capital, and Total Factor Productivity," I found that:
Minnesota's average annual rate of per capita human capital growth between 2014 and 2023 ranked 42nd out of 50 states. This was driven by low rankings for the growth of the employment/population ratio (43rd out of 50 states), and the per worker skills arising from education (42nd) and experience (45th).
Employment
In October, I summarized how we assemble our estimates of human capital per capita at the state level.
Human capital has both quantitative and qualitative components.
The quantitative components are the number of people employed (E) and the average number of hours each of these workers works annually (hours). Taken together, these give you a measure of what might be called "raw labor."
The qualitative components are the skills which augment each hour of raw labor. We call this "knowledge capital," and it arises from either the education (hEduc) or the experience (hExp) of the average worker.
Multiplying all these together gives you the total stock of human capital in each state in each year (H) and dividing that by the population (N) gives you the per capita stock of human capital (h), as shown in this equation:
[View formula in the link at bottom]
It follows, if you remember your high school math, that we can break down the growth rate in human capital per capita (gh) into the growth rates of its components using this equation:
[View formula in the link at bottom]
This will allow us to calculate how much human capital growth comes from the growth of raw labor and how much comes from the growth of knowledge capital.
Updating my estimates for 2024, for its share of the population employed (E/N) "Minnesota ranked fifth out of 50 states with a rate of 52.4%, an impressive score." But, in 2014, it ranked fourth. This is not to ring an alarm bell -- we've dropped one spot and are still fifth -- but it is to say that the scope for our state to grow its economy by increasing the share of the population employed is probably bumping up against some limit and it already was in 2014. The slow growth of this element of human capital in the period since 2014 should not be a surprise.
Immigration
While increasing the share of given population working can be expected to increase GDP per capita, the same is not necessarily true for increasing the number of people working via immigration.
In our 2021 report "The State of Minnesota's Economy: 2020: A focus on economic growth," I noted that:
Whether a policy which increases the population, such as expanding immigration, leads to higher per capita incomes depends on two things.
The first is whether the new arrivals have an employment ratio at least as high as that of the population already here. If they do not, they actually will lower the employment ratio, exacerbating the very problem the policy is intended to solve...
The second is whether the new arrivals are at least as productive as the workers already resident. Considering GDP per capita, immigrant workers add to the denominator (population) as well as the numerator (GDP). If these workers increase the population by a greater percentage than they increase GDP, they will actually lower GDP per capita.
What matters is the [relative] skill level of the workers...
In any discussion of immigration as a tool to increase the growth rate of per capita GDP, these questions need to be borne in mind.
* * *
John Phelan is an Economist at the Center of the American Experiment.
john.phelan@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/minnesotas-high-employment-level-slows-its-per-capita-gdp-growth-rate/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: ICE and the Manufactured Opposition It Faces
GOLDEN VALLEY, Minnesota, Nov. 26 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary:* * *
ICE and the manufactured opposition it faces
By David Zimmer
Casual Minnesota consumers of the news or social media are being, not so subtly, influenced to believe that enforcement efforts by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are creating "chaos" and are widely opposed.
The truth is the "chaos" surrounding nearly every ICE operation is manufactured, and while that manufactured chaos is impacting ... Show Full Article GOLDEN VALLEY, Minnesota, Nov. 26 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary: * * * ICE and the manufactured opposition it faces By David Zimmer Casual Minnesota consumers of the news or social media are being, not so subtly, influenced to believe that enforcement efforts by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are creating "chaos" and are widely opposed. The truth is the "chaos" surrounding nearly every ICE operation is manufactured, and while that manufactured chaos is impactingpublic support for the enforcement, the effort still has significant support -- support that must be more carefully maintained going forward.
The chaos
Yesterday, ICE agents in St. Paul attempted to arrest a Honduran man whom ICE had a warrant for. Reporting by the Pioneer Press indicates the man fled ICE agents and that an ICE vehicle was rammed in the process. The man was able to flee into a house in the Payne-Phalen neighborhood. ICE surrounded the house and eventually secured the man's cooperation to surrender.
However, while this arrest was taking place, a group called the Immigrant Defense Network (IDN) activated its "rapid response network," which resulted in an estimated 200 people descending upon the agents as they carried out their lawful work. Had this group not inserted itself in this lawful arrest, there would have been no chaos. The manufactured response was similar to ICE activity on East Lake Street in Minneapolis earlier this year, and elsewhere around the country, where protestors agitate the situation to force a response by agents, only to then claim victimhood.
This is not organic, but rather a highly organized effort to disrupt and intimidate ICE, while gaslighting the public into believing the chaos the protestors created was created by ICE.
These protestors aren't family or neighbors in the area. They don't arrive with peaceful intent to simply observe or express their First Amendment rights -- they arrive to create conflict and chaos.
The group's tactics are to surround agents and block their paths of travel on foot and by vehicle. Video shared on X shows protestors aggressively surrounding and shouting at agents. One video shows Minnesota House Representative Athena Hollins among the group yelling at the agents, while another unidentified protestor screams at the agents, calling them "fucking pigs" and demanding that they "get out of here." Another video shows people blocking the ICE vehicles as they attempted to leave the area -- an action that resulted in pepper spray being deployed by St. Paul police officers called to the area because of the threat the group was posing to the ICE agents.
The IDN has only been active since early 2025, so little is known about who is behind the group. But it is well organized, and its followers are aggressive. The Sahan Journal published some interesting background found here. In it, the IDN organizers discussed some of the coordination, travel, and training taking place with like-minded organizations around the country. People don't become this organized, fund travel and training across the nation, and create layered notification systems organically. There is big money behind this, no doubt.
To better prepare its own response strategy, the IDN sent a leadership delegation to Los Angeles to be trained by the National Day Laborer Organizing Network on how to adapt their Adopt a Corner model, Torres Desantiago said. In addition, members from the Center for Popular Democracy will soon come to Minnesota for two days of training with IDN.
Sahan Journal
Unfortunately, the IDN has politicians all too willing to parrot their narratives.
The narrative
Not surprisingly, many politicians who oppose the President jump at the chance to amplify the "chaos" narrative. Does anyone believe the term chaos is being used by so many, just by chance? You shouldn't.The group's tactics are to surround agents and block their paths of travel on foot and by vehicle. Video shared on X shows protestors aggressively surrounding and shouting at agents. One video shows Minnesota House Representative Athena Hollins among the group yelling at the agents, while another unidentified protestor screams at the agents, calling them "fucking pigs" and demanding that they "get out of here." Another video shows people blocking the ICE vehicles as they attempted to leave the area -- an action that resulted in pepper spray being deployed by St. Paul police officers called to the area because of the threat the group was posing to the ICE agents.
The IDN has only been active since early 2025, so little is known about who is behind the group. But it is well organized, and its followers are aggressive. The Sahan Journal published some interesting background found here. In it, the IDN organizers discussed some of the coordination, travel, and training taking place with like-minded organizations around the country. People don't become this organized, fund travel and training across the nation, and create layered notification systems organically. There is big money behind this, no doubt.
To better prepare its own response strategy, the IDN sent a leadership delegation to Los Angeles to be trained by the National Day Laborer Organizing Network on how to adapt their Adopt a Corner model, Torres Desantiago said. In addition, members from the Center for Popular Democracy will soon come to Minnesota for two days of training with IDN.
Sahan Journal
Unfortunately, the IDN has politicians all too willing to parrot their narratives.
The narrative
Not surprisingly, many politicians who oppose the President jump at the chance to amplify the "chaos" narrative. Does anyone believe the term chaos is being used by so many, just by chance? You shouldn't.
This amounts to professional-grade gaslighting.
Perhaps no complaint is as egregious as Governor Walz's suggestion that ICE should be reaching out to his office in advance of making arrests. This is the man who called ICE agents the "modern day Gestapo" during a commencement address at the University of Minnesota's Law School graduation last spring - an accusation he has repeatedly failed to walk back. To then act surprised when ICE doesn't share information with his office about enforcement operations is truly rich.
Blame sanctuary policies
In one of his first moves, President Trump appointed Tom Homan to be the "Border Czar." Homan has refused to play into the narrative that ICE's efforts to aggressively pursue people in the U.S. illegally and deport them have gone well beyond its stated goal to prioritize criminals.
Homan has been clear since early 2025 that although ICE would be prioritizing the arrests of illegal aliens who had criminal records, collateral arrests of those without criminal records were bound to occur with more frequency, especially in jurisdictions that had adopted sanctuary-style policies. This occurs because sanctuary policies prohibit local law enforcement and jails from transferring custody of people already under arrest to ICE. When local jurisdictions release these people, it forces ICE into the community to re-arrest them. When agents are forced into the community, they are more likely to encounter others who have violated our immigration laws but have otherwise remained law-abiding. Homan has rightfully said, ICE agents will not turn their back on these situations, and those people will be arrested as well -- a situation labelled as a collateral arrest. Local officials who have supported and passed sanctuary policies have only themselves to blame for the increase in collateral arrests.
The truth
President Trump was elected with a mandate to enforce our immigration laws -- and he has kept his campaign promise. The public needs to avoid falling victim to the efforts to delegitimize this success.
In October, Secretary Noem was in Minnesota to speak on the immigration enforcement effort. During this address, she announced that as of October, ICE had arrested approximately 4,300 people in Minnesota in 2025. 3,316 of them had criminal histories, 98 of them were documented gang members, 11 were suspected terrorists, and 2 were foreign fugitives.
Secretary Noem also reported that as of October, ICE had arrested 515,000 people nationwide for immigration violations. In addition, another 1.6 million had "self-deported" upon warnings from the Trump Administration that failure to do so would result in a permanent ban. According to ICE detention data over the four years of the Biden administration, ICE detained an average of 268,540, while allowing tens of millions to overwhelm our border.
Furthermore, ICE is positively impacting our public safety in Minnesota through its enforcement action as evidenced by press releases like the one below:
[View photo in the link at bottom]
Takeaway
President Trump won a second term last November with heavy support to address the failed border security and immigration system under President Biden. Throughout the early months of his term, the President's approval rating involving immigration was consistently positive. He continues to fulfill his promise to secure the border and to begin removing the millions of people who have illegally entered the U.S. over many years.
Unfortunately, as is the case with so many issues, the fickle public has begun to abandon its overwhelming support for this aggressive immigration enforcement -- and the efforts of IDN and others are a key factor. What once amounted to overwhelming support for the effort has now begun to wane. As of November, the Real Clear Politics average for all polling on the President's approval rating on immigration stood at 51% disapproval and 46% approval.
The Administration must avoid unforced errors in this effort -- the margin is too thin. Focus must remain on prioritizing the worst of the worst -- those with criminal records -- while avoiding situations that opponents will capitalize upon.
Bolstering ICE's public information officer complement would go a long way to combating the misinformation machine that has been set in motion. That isn't selling out; it is recognizing the public's fickle nature, and the need to own the narrative and to maintain public support.
* * *
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/ice-and-the-manufactured-opposition-it-faces/
[Category: ThinkTank]
American Action Forum Issues Commentary: GAIN AI Act in Context - Export Controls and U.S. AI Competitiveness
WASHINGTON, Nov. 26 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on Nov. 25, 2025:* * *
The GAIN AI Act in Context: Export Controls and U.S. AI Competitiveness
By Angela Luna
Executive Summary
* The Guaranteeing Access and Innovation for National Artificial Intelligence (GAIN AI) Act seeks to address domestic supply constraints and inequality of access by mandating U.S. domestic consumers have priority access to advanced semiconductors before international sales can be fulfilled.
* This policy, however, risks unintentionally harming U.S. technological innovation and advantaging ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 26 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on Nov. 25, 2025: * * * The GAIN AI Act in Context: Export Controls and U.S. AI Competitiveness By Angela Luna Executive Summary * The Guaranteeing Access and Innovation for National Artificial Intelligence (GAIN AI) Act seeks to address domestic supply constraints and inequality of access by mandating U.S. domestic consumers have priority access to advanced semiconductors before international sales can be fulfilled. * This policy, however, risks unintentionally harming U.S. technological innovation and advantagingforeign competition by broadly limiting access of leading U.S. chip producers to profitable global markets.
* To sustain long-term U.S. AI competitiveness, policymakers must abandon broad restrictions in favor of a strategy focused on establishing narrow, evidence-based export controls limited strictly to clear security threats and accelerating domestic production and infrastructure development.
Introduction
The global AI leadership race is now a race for the most advanced chips. High-performance chips, such as GPUs and other AI accelerators, are the pillar of training and running advanced AI models. Today, U.S. companies - including NVIDIA and AMD - lead in the design and production of these chips. This edge in semiconductor technology is a major part of the United States' strength in AI and a key piece of its broader geopolitical strategy.
To sustain this competitive edge, the federal government has increasingly deployed export controls as a strategic tool to restrict access to advanced AI chips. The bipartisan Guaranteeing Access and Innovation for National Artificial Intelligence (GAIN AI) Act seeks to address domestic supply constraints and inequality of access by mandating U.S. domestic consumers have priority access to advanced semiconductors before international sales can be fulfilled. It risks unintentionally harming U.S. technological innovation, however, and advantaging foreign competition by broadly limiting access of leading U.S. chipmakers to profitable global markets.
The debate around the GAIN AI Act mirrors past challenges in managing the global spread of advanced AI chips, especially as the government decides how to handle a technology used in both civilian and military contexts. Yet to sustain long-term U.S. AI competitiveness, policymakers must abandon broad restrictions in favor of a strategy focused on establishing narrow, evidence-based export controls limited strictly to clear security threats and accelerating domestic production and infrastructure development.
The GAIN AI Act and the Redefinition of AI Chip Exports
To protect the U.S. technological edge and competitive advantage in artificial intelligence (AI), the federal government has imposed export controls that restrict access to advanced AI chips, particularly to China. Over the past years, successive administrations have introduced restrictions on chip exports. Notably, the first Trump Administration imposed export restrictions on advanced chips to China, including NVIDIA's A100 and H100, which are designed for high-performance AI. Subsequently, the Biden Administration put in place the Framework for Artificial Intelligence Diffusion, a model that proposed a three-tiered system to control the global trade of U.S. AI chips. (This framework was rescinded by the incoming Trump Administration, citing concerns that such restrictions could ultimately hinder U.S. innovation and leadership in the AI sector.)
The recently introduced bipartisan GAIN AI Act represents a continuation of these export control initiatives and frames the availability of AI chips as a matter of national security and economic stability. The Act would require any U.S. chipmaker to meet a domestic quota before exporting chips. Specifically, it requires a presumption of denial of export licenses for "advanced integrated circuits", and any products that use them, if a company cannot certify that no U.S. entity is seeking those chips and that exporting them will not disrupt domestic supply. This mechanism is designed to ensure that U.S.-produced technologies meet the domestic demand of U.S.-based customers, including small businesses and academic institutions, before chipmakers satisfy international demand.
The GAIN AI Act brings the same tradeoffs as past proposals to manage the global diffusion of advanced AI chips, however. It highlights the problem of how the government should best intervene - given the dual-use nature of AI technology, with both civilian and military uses - without undermining long-term U.S. AI leadership and competitiveness in international markets. Consequently, policymakers must navigate this challenging environment in a way that avoids regulatory overreach that could undermine the very innovation it seeks to protect.
Chip Market Structure and Access
Global Dominance
The semiconductor industry is expected to grow into a trillion-dollar market by the end of the decade. This growth relies on chips that are critical across global industries, powering everything from computers and smartphones to advanced AI systems. The United States currently holds a leading global position in the architecture and design of advanced semiconductors essential for AI workloads. U.S. firms such as NVIDIA and AMD have successfully diversified their global sales, though the United States remains their most critical market. In 2024, neither company derived more than 50 percent of its revenue from a single country: NVIDIA's U.S. revenue share stood at 47 percent, while AMD's was 34 percent. Notably, while China represents AMD's second-largest market at 24 percent of revenue, it accounts for only 13 percent for NVIDIA, placing it behind Singapore and Taiwan. This global structure underscores U.S. technological leadership while highlighting the delicate balance between domestic control and international market reliance.
The Structural Vulnerability to Chip Shortage
Adding to the challenge of this global access distribution is the structural fragility of the semiconductor industry. The sector is fundamentally susceptible to production cycles due to the requirement for extremely long lead times, billions in upfront capital, and volatile, innovation-driven demand. The existing global chip shortage has significantly impacted markets, and a future crisis is highly probable. An analysis by Bain and Company projects that the surge in AI-driven demand could increase the need for certain components by an additional 30 percent by 2026. Coupled with the anticipated acceleration of smartphone and PC replacement cycles by AI-enabled devices, the ongoing geopolitical tensions could generate the next semiconductor shortage.
Domestic Concentration and Access Crisis
In the United States, it's becoming easier for people to access AI tools and models, but the chips and computing power that makes these systems run is far from accessible. Many depend on a small group of cloud hyperscalers - large cloud service providers that operate massive-scale data centers that provide infrastructure for AI and other workloads. These hyperscalers can afford to build and maintain a massive infrastructure containing thousands of AI chips; they then rent AI capacity to smaller companies, such as startups and universities. Most of the advanced chips produced by U.S. manufacturers end up in the hands of these giants. As a result, computational power is concentrated in just a few firms that have the scale and capital to support it. Thus, for U.S. startups and medium companies, the problem is not fully about chip shortages; it's that they can't realistically own it. High costs, opaque pricing, and long waits for hardware mean that these companies are effectively incapable of buying the chips.
The current market structure is complex. The United States is a global leader in advanced semiconductor technology, yet the market is exposed to major supply risks. These realities provide the essential context for evaluating policy interventions, such as the GAIN AI Act, which aims to prioritize domestic users but could also disrupt the global markets that sustain U.S. chipmakers.
The Unintended Consequences of the GAIN AI Act
While the GAIN AI Act aims to address domestic supply constraints for startups and universities, data show that the issue for these companies is not that the chips do not exist but that they can't acquire them. Yet the legislation risks harming long-term U.S. competitiveness and innovation capacity of chips and AI developments. By mandating the satisfaction of domestic quotas before fulfilling international sales, both domestic and international customers face extra licensing paperwork and compliance costs in a market that has already long waiting times. Further, these controls risk the redistribution of market share to foreign competitors operating without similar restrictions. If U.S. firms retreat from international markets, other firms will fill the gap; estimates show that South Korean firms could gain $21 billion in sales, European Union firms $15 billion, and Taiwanese firms $14 billion of U.S. firms' losses.
In fact, the legislation may effectively deny U.S. chipmakers the opportunity to maximize sales in global markets, even when they have successfully competed and established customer relationships. The legislation may threaten U.S. innovation since the highly specialized semiconductor industry relies on maximizing global revenue to cover the billions required for the next generation of chip research and development.
Critics also argue that the GAIN AI Act goes further than past controls, noting that the legislation would apply even to older AI chips which were specifically developed to comply with prior export controls, such as Nvidia's HGX G20. The scope of technologies subject to this bill is also not limited to those posing national security concerns, potentially expanding controls to chips not currently requiring a license, such as those used in gaming consoles. In sum, the legislation would unintentionally raise compliance costs for U.S. companies and add regulatory uncertainty to an already volatile semiconductor market.
Conclusion
Evaluating proposals to address AI chip export controls, including the GAIN AI Act, ultimately requires policymakers to define the fundamental objective of U.S. dual-use technology policy. Given the United States' leadership in advanced chip creation, the path forward presents two distinct approaches. Policymakers will either adopt a narrow, clearly targeted export policy rooted in concrete security concerns - keeping U.S. technology competitive at home and abroad - or impose broad restrictions on global sales that could unintentionally weaken the country's market position.
The structure of the chip market and its supply chain suggests that the most effective strategy for protecting U.S. advantage in AI is accelerated domestic capacity and innovation. That means the federal government should move away from limiting the market to empowering U.S. companies to lead and shape global standards. This calls for a more focused approach that keeps export restrictions narrow and grounded in real security risks, while reducing barriers to speed up domestic production of both chip manufacturing and AI infrastructure.
* * *
Angela Luna is the Technology & Innovation Policy Analyst at the American Action Forum.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/the-gain-ai-act-in-context-export-controls-and-u-s-ai-competitiveness/
[Category: Think Tank]