Think Tanks
Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Manhattan Institute Issues Commentary to Wall Street Journal: How DEI Caused a Military Recruitment Crisis
NEW YORK, Jan. 14 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Jan. 13, 2026, to the Wall Street Journal:* * *
How DEI Caused a Military Recruitment Crisis
By Kevin Wallsten and Mike Gallagher
The Biden administration discouraged white recruits. Secretary Hegseth's 'reset' invites everyone to serve.
In his recent viral essay, "The Lost Generation," published in Compact, Jacob Savage describes how U.S. media and academia in the 2010s closed their doors to millennial white men. The self-righteous, racist ideology of diversity, equity and inclusion wasn't a problem ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Jan. 14 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Jan. 13, 2026, to the Wall Street Journal: * * * How DEI Caused a Military Recruitment Crisis By Kevin Wallsten and Mike Gallagher The Biden administration discouraged white recruits. Secretary Hegseth's 'reset' invites everyone to serve. In his recent viral essay, "The Lost Generation," published in Compact, Jacob Savage describes how U.S. media and academia in the 2010s closed their doors to millennial white men. The self-righteous, racist ideology of diversity, equity and inclusion wasn't a problemonly within those rarified fields. It also infected the U.S. armed forces. Under President Biden, senior officers worked to make our military less white, precipitating a recruitment crisis.
During the first Trump administration, lethality was the military's overriding focus. That changed in 2021. Mr. Biden issued an executive order embedding "diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility" across "all parts of the Federal workforce." Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin took the unprecedented step of ordering a "stand-down" to combat "extremism" in the armed forces. By the time an independent report commissioned by the Pentagon found these concerns to be baseless, they had already formed the ideological permission structure for a DEI crusade.
Continue reading the entire piece here at the Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/opinion/how-dei-caused-a-military-recruitment-crisis-c86acd6e?st=pNSukq&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink)
* * *
Kevin Wallsten is an Adjunct Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, where his work focuses on higher education reform and the City Journal College Rankings. Mike Gallagher, a Journal contributor, is head of defense at Palantir Technologies and a distinguished fellow at the Hudson Institute.
* * *
Original text here: https://manhattan.institute/article/how-dei-caused-a-military-recruitment-crisis
[Category: ThinkTank]
Jamestown Foundation Issues Commentary to Eurasia Daily Monitor: Moscow Uses Oreshnik for Psychological Pressure
WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on Jan. 13, 2026, in its Eurasia Daily Monitor:* * *
Moscow Uses Oreshnik for Psychological Pressure
By Yuri Lapaiev
Executive Summary:
* The use of ballistic missiles against Ukraine on January 8-9 had a demonstrative effect, aimed at Ukraine and its Western partners, as well as at the Russian domestic audience.
* Russian attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure in winter indicate the continuation of terror against Ukraine's civilian population.
* Russia will most likely continue to combine kinetic strikes--or ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on Jan. 13, 2026, in its Eurasia Daily Monitor: * * * Moscow Uses Oreshnik for Psychological Pressure By Yuri Lapaiev Executive Summary: * The use of ballistic missiles against Ukraine on January 8-9 had a demonstrative effect, aimed at Ukraine and its Western partners, as well as at the Russian domestic audience. * Russian attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure in winter indicate the continuation of terror against Ukraine's civilian population. * Russia will most likely continue to combine kinetic strikes--orthe use of various military systems--to support psyops against its adversaries.
On the night of January 8-9, the Russian army launched a strike on a critical infrastructure facility in Ukraine's Lviv oblast. The target was located around 70 kilometers (43.5 miles) away from the Polish border (Radio Svoboda, January 9). Later, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) was able to locate and identify fragments of the missile used in the attack. According to preliminary investigation data, it was an intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM), Oreshnik, which Russia had already used once to strike Ukraine in 2024 (see EDM, November 21, 2024; SBU, January 9). The Russian Ministry of Defense officially confirmed the strike, stating that the Russian Armed Forces had launched the Oreshnik medium-range mobile ground missile system against critical targets in Ukraine. The Ministry of Defense emphasized that this was a response to the alleged "terrorist attack by the Kyiv regime on the President of the Russian Federation [Vladimir Putin's] residence in Novgorod oblast, carried out on the night of December 29, 2025" (Telegram/@mod_russia, January 9).
According to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the strikes on Putin's Valdai residence did not happen (see EDM, January 12). In his opinion, the spread of false information by the Russians is a reaction to the successful meetings between the Ukrainian and U.S. sides on the peace process, in particular to his personal meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump on December 28, 2025 (Ukrinform, December 30, 2025). For an international audience, Moscow is trying to portray Kyiv as an aggressor disrupting the fragile peace process and unworthy of U.S. support. The absence of an attack on the residence was also confirmed by U.S. intelligence agencies (DW, January 1). Later, Trump himself stated that he did not believe that the attack happened (Reuters, January 5).
Within Russian society, this situation created a demand for revenge at the highest level. Major bloggers and Russian politicians equated the Ukrainian government with terrorist organizations and demanded the physical destruction of Zelenskyy, a "retaliatory strike" on government institutions in Kyiv, and critical infrastructure (BBC-Russian Service, December 30, 2025). This request from the Russians intensified after the U.S. operation in Venezuela against Nicolas Maduro and the arrest of the tanker Bella-1 (formerly Marinera), which took place despite the presence of Russian military ships nearby and the urgent change of the tanker's flag to Russian for protection. Another important event was the "Coalition of the Willing" summit in Paris on January 6, and the announcement that partner countries were ready to deploy Coalition military forces in Ukraine to support the peace Telegramprocess (President of Ukraine, January 6).
As previously predicted, Russia was expected to intensify its attacks on critical energy infrastructure during the coldest months in Ukraine to enhance the psychological effect of kinetic strikes (see EDM, August 1, 2024, October 16, 2025). According to unconfirmed information from Russian sources, the strike was carried out on an underground gas storage facility in the Lviv oblast (/@wargonzo, January 9). In turn, the city of Lviv's mayor, Andriy Sadovyi, did not provide any details other than that the strike was on an infrastructure facility in the Lviv oblast (Telegram/@andriysadovyi, January 9).
The time and place of the strike, as well as the target and the chosen weapon system, indicate that this was not purely a military strike but rather a psychological operation aimed at intimidating the people and decision-makers in Ukraine, the United States, and the European Union. Ukrainian experts share this opinion. In particular, Anatoliy Khrapchynskyi, deputy director of an electronic warfare equipment company and a former officer of the Ukrainian Air Force, noted that this is a direct signal to Europe. This is especially true given that the missile's flight time to the EU border is 10-15 minutes. In his opinion, Oreshnik will remain what it really is--"a loud, unjustifiably expensive attempt by Russia to prove its greatness, which is diminishing with each passing day" (Telegram/@ginandtolik, January 9).
The same view is shared by Anton Gerashchenko, former advisor to the Ukrainian Minister of Internal Affairs and founder of the Institute of the Future. He wrote that this was a demonstrative strike that achieved nothing. Ukraine needs maximum support this winter and maximum pressure on Russia (X/@Gerashchenko_en, January 9). Another military expert, Pavlo Narozhnyi, claimed that the strike was instead a demonstration of capabilities rather than a real combat strike. It was a signal to Western audiences because the strike took place near the border with Poland, a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) country (24 Channel, January 9). Institute for the Study of War (ISW) experts believe the strike was likely part of the Kremlin's efforts to break Western support for Ukraine (ISW, January 9). This is, to some extent, confirmed by the appearance of pro-Russian publications in dubious sources that promote a similar narrative (NoctiLux Analysis, January 10).
Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrii Sybiha claimed "Putin uses an IRBM near EU and NATO border in response to his own hallucinations--this is truly a global threat. And it demands global responses" (X/@andrii_sybiha, January 9). Zelenskyy underlined that the strike was "pointedly close to the borders of the European Union. In terms of using medium-range ballistic missiles, this poses the same challenge for all: Warsaw, Bucharest, Budapest, and for many other capitals as well" (X/@ZelenskyyUa, January 9). The psychological goal of the strike coincides with the previous use of Oreshnik against an industrial facility in the city of Dnipro on November 21, 2024. That strike should also be viewed as an intimidation tactic rather than an attempt to cause real damage or gain military advantage (see EDM, November 21, 2024, February 3, 2025).
The latest Moscow attack with the Oreshnik IRBM on Ukraine demonstrated several trends. Russia is losing its geopolitical weight but is trying to compensate by taking demonstrative actions when it feels unpunished and stronger. Such actions are designed not so much for military effect as for psychological effect--to intimidate external audiences (primarily Ukraine and Europe) and to positively influence its own domestic audience to "sweeten the pill" of the lack of significant results on the front lines in Ukraine. The attack may indicate a continuation of the tactic of terror against the civilian population of Ukraine. According to the Russian authorities' plan, the ultimate goal is likely to create the conditions for an uprising in Ukraine and the overthrow of the current government to force it to agree to surrender and stop attacks on critical infrastructure.
* * *
Yuri Lapaiev is currently the editor-in-chief of Tyzhden (The Ukrainian Week) magazine.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/moscow-uses-oreshnik-for-psychological-pressure/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Historians Rank the 10 Best and 10 Worst U.S. Foreign Policy Decisions in U.S. History in a New CFR Survey
WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 -- The Council on Foreign Relations issued the following news release:* * *
Historians Rank the 10 Best and 10 Worst U.S. Foreign Policy Decisions in U.S. History in a New CFR Survey
"For two-and-a-half centuries, the United States has faced a challenging world. Some of its responses have made Americans proud. Others have not," begins a new interactive webpage from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) that provides the results of a survey of historians ranking the most consequential U.S. foreign policy decisions in American history.
More than 350 members of the Society ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 -- The Council on Foreign Relations issued the following news release: * * * Historians Rank the 10 Best and 10 Worst U.S. Foreign Policy Decisions in U.S. History in a New CFR Survey "For two-and-a-half centuries, the United States has faced a challenging world. Some of its responses have made Americans proud. Others have not," begins a new interactive webpage from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) that provides the results of a survey of historians ranking the most consequential U.S. foreign policy decisions in American history. More than 350 members of the Societyfor Historians of American Foreign Relations (SHAFR) responded to a survey that asked them to identify and rank what in their judgment were the 10 best and 10 worst foreign policy decisions in U.S. history. Their responses determined the rankings on "The 10 Best and 10 Worst U.S. Foreign Policy Decisions" webpage. SHAFR is the world's foremost professional association dedicated to the scholarly study of the history of American foreign relations.
The Marshall Plan, the creation of the United Nations, and the 1778 Treaty of Alliance with France topped the list of the 10 best U.S. foreign policy decisions. Leading the 10 worst U.S. foreign policy decisions were the invasion of Iraq, the deployment of combat forces to Vietnam, and the Indian Removal Act.
Those results and the other survey decisions are explored through written analysis, video, and additional educational resources.
"History may not repeat itself, but it often rhymes," said James M. Lindsay, CFR's Mary and David Boies distinguished senior fellow in U.S. foreign policy and director of the survey and author of the accompanying webpage. "As the United States celebrates the 250th anniversary of its founding, the survey and webpage will enable Americans of all ages to learn more about the foreign policy choices past generations made and inform the debate over how the United States should meet the challenges of today."
The survey ran from October 5, 2023, through November 5, 2023, and consisted of two questions. First, SHAFR members were asked to select 10 decisions from a list of 120 possible foreign policy decisions that in their "judgment did the most to advance U.S. national interests and values," with the option to review the full list beforehand. Second, members reviewed the same 120 decisions and selected the 10 that in their "judgment did the most to harm U.S. national interests and values," again with the opportunity to review the full list.
"Some survey results will likely fit with expectations, while others will likely surprise and lead to discussion and even debate," said Christopher Nichols, SHAFR member and the Ohio State University's Wayne Woodrow Hayes chair in national security studies and professor of history.
To explore the results and learn more about the survey, visit www.cfr.org/ten-best-ten-worst-us-foreign-policy-decisions.
To request an interview with Lindsay, please email the Global Communications team at communications@cfr.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cfr.org/news-releases/historians-rank-10-best-and-10-worst-us-foreign-policy-decisions-us-history-new-cfr
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center: 'Turtle Island' and the Legitimacy of America
WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 -- The Capital Research Center posted the following commentary on Jan. 13, 2026:* * *
"Turtle Island" and the legitimacy of America
A look at how the radical left has appropriated a traditional Native American mythology to assert that America (and often Israel) are illegitimate nations. The legitimate American government now alleges that some of them have turned to violence.
By Robert Stilson
In December, federal law enforcement disrupted what they alleged was a plot to conduct a series of ideologically-motivated bombings across parts of California on New Year's Eve. Four ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 -- The Capital Research Center posted the following commentary on Jan. 13, 2026: * * * "Turtle Island" and the legitimacy of America A look at how the radical left has appropriated a traditional Native American mythology to assert that America (and often Israel) are illegitimate nations. The legitimate American government now alleges that some of them have turned to violence. By Robert Stilson In December, federal law enforcement disrupted what they alleged was a plot to conduct a series of ideologically-motivated bombings across parts of California on New Year's Eve. Fourdefendants were arrested and subsequently indicted on terrorism charges, three of whom have pleaded not guilty as of mid-January 2026.
The defendants were said to have been members of an obscure far-left extremist group called the Turtle Island Liberation Front, which (among other things) aims for what it calls "liberation through decolonization and tribal sovereignty." An FBI affidavit asserted that the Turtle Island Liberation Front "publicly posts content that advocates for violence against United States officials," that it has called "for the working class to rise up and fight back against capitalism," and that it believes "that liberalism and peaceful protest will be the downfall of those who believe it is enough...that 'direct action is the only way.'"
While the terrorism charges certainly place the Turtle Island Liberation Front in its own unique category, the term "Turtle Island" has become widely employed by those who share the broader anti-American and (often) anti-Israel ideology to which the group evidentially adhered--even if they oppose its alleged embrace of violence. In the activist context, "Turtle Island" has been incorporated into a spectrum of worldviews that, to one degree or another, view the United States and the global influence it exerts as malign and illegitimate.
"Turtle Island" in the activist context
***
This radical-left manifestation of the Turtle Island concept has, perhaps unsurprisingly, found fertile ground in academia. The Atlantic quoted University of Minnesota professor Melanie Yazzie as explaining that "the goal is to dismantle the settler project that is the United States..."
***
"Turtle Island" most properly refers to a traditional mythology common among certain American Indian cultures, holding that the land beneath them had been formed on the back of a gigantic turtle. Geographically, it is generally understood to refer to North America. In this benign context, "Turtle Island" is an expression of those cultures' socioreligious heritage.
More recently, the term has also become associated with a particular vein of radical-left activism that views so-called "settler-colonialist" countries as illegitimate. These activists typically direct particular ire toward the United States and Israel, while purporting to draw parallels between the Native American and Palestinian "indigenous" peoples each is respectively alleged to have displaced from their rightful lands. Bard College professor Roger Berkowitz explained the phenomenon to The Atlantic in this way: "The left has replaced its faith in proletarian subjects and utopian solutions with a view of the Indigenous as innocent and oppressed. It's an ethics rather than a politics."
This radical-left manifestation of the Turtle Island concept has, perhaps unsurprisingly, found fertile ground in academia. The Atlantic quoted University of Minnesota professor Melanie Yazzie as explaining that "the goal is to dismantle the settler project that is the United States," and that "we want U.S. out of everywhere. We want U.S. out of Palestine. We want U.S. out of Turtle Island." In a declaration of breathtaking absurdity, she characterized the United States as "the greatest predator empire that has ever existed." Yazzie's statements were made at an event hosted by an explicitly communist activist group called The Red Nation, which contends that "for our Earth to live, capitalism and colonialism must die."
These words have been echoed by Nick Estes, The Red Nation's co-founder and another University of Minnesota professor. Estes has declared that the United States "sits atop stolen Native lands" and written of what he called "compelling critiques of imperialist state sovereignty and the very idea that the United States is a legitimate nation. After all, conquest is considered an illegitimate form of government." In addition to claiming that the United States captured erstwhile Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro because he was "refusing to be a slave to a white supremacist [American] empire," Estes has attempted to justify the October 7, 2023 Hamas terrorist attacks against Israel (which he refers to as "Al Aqsa Flood"), asking rhetorically: "Did you expect the oppressed would hold hands and hug the murder out of their oppressors?" Later, he wrote that "the Zionist-led genocide against Palestinians" had "firm roots in Turtle Island."
Estes was an inaugural 2020 recipient of the Marguerite Casey Foundation's Freedom Scholar award, which provides $250,000 in unrestricted funds to radical activist-academics.
In 2024, the Marguerite Casey Foundation awarded another Freedom Scholar prize to University of Illinois Chicago professor Nadine Naber for her work on "decolonial abolition" and disrupting "nationalist myths" from "Turtle Island to Palestine." Months before her award was announced, Naber wrote (in an article that used the phrase "Turtle Island" five times) that "the existence of the U.S. nation-state is based on colonialism, empire-building, war-making and enslavement." Elsewhere, she has advocated for abolishing capitalism, international borders, "heteropatriarchy," the United States military, police, prisons, and "the very ideas of a crime and a criminal," alongside "the return of lands to decolonizing Indigenous stewardship." Functionally, Naber supports an end to the United States itself. Indeed, she has written of dismantling "the structure of the U.S. nation-state," suggesting that "perhaps we don't need [it] anymore."
Use by activist nonprofits
***
. . . the NDN Collective has called for the closure of Mount Rushmore National Memorial--which it attacks as a "symbol of white supremacy and colonization"--and for the "stolen" land the monument occupies in the Black Hills to be turned over to the Lakota people.
***
The phrase "Turtle Island" is also employed by nonprofit advocacy groups.
Sometimes, these groups have missions that are directly connected to American Indian activism. For example, before 2017 the Indigenous Environmental Network filed its Form 990 tax forms under the legal name of Indigenous Educational Network of Turtle Island. Today, its logo remains a turtle with an image of North America superimposed on its shell. The Indigenous Environmental Network supports Green New Deal-style eco-socialism from a Native American perspective. It claims that "the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas have lived for over 500 years in confrontation with an immigrant society," which it asserts has produced a contemporary "environmental crisis."
The NDN Collective, a 501(c)(3) whose mission is to "build the collective power of Indigenous Peoples, communities, and Nations to exercise our inherent right to self-determination," explains that its "geographic grantmaking focus is Turtle Island (also known as North America)." Among other things, the NDN Collective has called for the closure of Mount Rushmore National Memorial--which it attacks as a "symbol of white supremacy and colonization"--and for the "stolen" land the monument occupies in the Black Hills to be turned over to the Lakota people.
Others use "Turtle Island" to signal their general antipathy toward the United States and (usually) Israel, which they view as forces of unmitigated global malevolence. The full-spectrum anti-American agitation group Code Pink includes the phrase in its "manifesto" against "the colonial domination of the U.S. empire." On Independence Day 2024, Jewish Voice for Peace posted that "this July 4th, we contemplate parallels between the colonization of Turtle Island ("North America") and Palestine," alongside a series of maps of Israel and the United States purporting to show the progression of "native land dispossession" in each. The Twin Cities chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America used the term in its "Statement of Solidarity with Palestine" after the October 2023 Hamas terror attacks.
Perhaps the best illustration of how some left-wing activist groups have used the Turtle Island concept to synthesize anti-American and anti-Israel activism is Honor the Earth. A 501(c)(3) public charity, Honor the Earth sees itself as part of "a political movement of returning land to Indigenous people whose land and sovereignty were stolen by settler colonialism." It declares that "the formation of Israel, much like the United States, was predicated on the theft of Indigenous land and destruction of Indigenous livelihoods."
Honor the Earth writes on its website:
From Palestine to Turtle Island, Indigenous struggles for sovereignty, land, and basic human dignity are intertwined. Our peoples both face violent settler-colonial regimes, rooted in racist supremacist systems, that enact programs of extermination and land theft. These regimes - so-called "Israel" and the so-called "United States" - share strategies, ideologies and resources to enforce global dominance over Indigenous peoples.
Founded in 1993, Honor the Earth's activism was traditionally centered on the intersection of environmental and Native American causes--the archetypical example being its heavy involvement in the Dakota Access Pipeline protests of 2016-2017. For years the group was led by its co-founder Winona LaDuke, who most famously was Ralph Nader's running mate on the Green Party ticket in both the 1996 and 2000 presidential elections. LaDuke resigned as Honor the Earth's executive director in 2023 amid an organizational sexual harassment scandal, after which the group was extensively overhauled.
LaDuke was replaced by Krystal Two Bulls, who years earlier had allegedly been involved with some of the most radical elements of the Dakota Access protests. Under Two Bulls, Honor the Earth quickly incorporated pro-Palestinian activism into its core mission. It became the new fiscal sponsor of the pro-terrorist Palestinian Youth Movement, which had formerly been housed at the WESPAC Foundation. Palestinian Youth Movement organizers currently hold positions on Honor the Earth's board (which the group says is now "composed entirely of Indigenous women") and in its senior management.
Of the 39 "news" posts available on Honor the Earth's website dating from December 2022 through January 2026, all but three included the word "indigenous." Nearly 70 percent featured some variation of the word "colonial," while over 60 percent explicitly used the phrase "Turtle Island." 28 percent used the word "Palestinian" or a variant. Five posts included all four terms. More than one post has used the word "fascist" to describe the policies of the Second Trump Administration.
In its 2024 tax filings, Honor the Earth reported $3.65 million in total revenue, down from $6.2 million in 2023. Its major funders in 2024 included the WESPAC Foundation ($1 million, earmarked for the Palestinian Youth Movement), ImpactAssets ($534,500), the Freedom Together Foundation ($500,000), Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors ($250,000), the California Endowment ($100,000), the Groundswell Fund ($100,000), and Possibility Labs ($100,000).
Relationship with land acknowledgements
***
In 2024, Bay Area Legal Aid received 90 percent of its $31.4 million total revenue from government grants, yet it openly disputes the sovereignty and legitimacy of the very authorities colleting the tax dollars which underwrite its operations.
***
Use of the phrase "Turtle Island" can also be loosely connected to the separate phenomenon of land acknowledgements, whereby an individual or institution publicly declares that a given geographic location in what is now the United States (or Canada) was once inhabited by one or more indigenous cultures. Their wording and length vary considerably, though most tend to follow a general template.
Land acknowledgements have become especially associated with colleges and universities, some of which have evidently dedicated considerable resources to their development and implementation. Brown University's official 98-word statement was the product of a year-long effort by a specially formed seven-member Land Acknowledgement Working Group. Evergreen State College provides four different acknowledgements to be used depending on the specific location in which the statement is being made.
Columbia Law School's land acknowledgement reads:
The Lenni-Lenape and Wappinger people lived on this land before and during colonization of the Americas. We recognize these Indigenous people of Manhattan, their displacement, dispossession, and continued presence. We are reminded to reflect on our past as we contemplate our way forward to support Indigenous people and other marginalized communities of this land and advance our commitment to justice.
Some land acknowledgements explicitly refer to Turtle Island, such as the particularly inflammatory language adopted by Loyola University Maryland:
Across Turtle Island, known to settlers as North America, the racist violence of settler colonialism past and present has led to the traumatization and destruction of millions of Indigenous bodies, communities, cultures and resources. . . This acknowledgment is a small and insufficient step toward correcting the racist narrative and actions of white supremacy and colonialism.
Nonprofit activist groups also occasionally perform land acknowledgements. A Thanksgiving post on the Liberty Hill Foundation's website stated that the group was "on the land of the Tongva/Gabrieleno Nations." The far-left Alliance for Global Justice has declared its "solidarity with all the Indigenous people of Turtle Island...the land some call the Americas," while asserting that "we stand on land that is stolen, land that is exploited. We occupy the land that is the rightful home of Indigenous people." The Grassroots Global Justice Alliance announced that its 2022 membership assembly would include those from "Turtle Island, Puerto Rico, Hawai'i, and Guam, along with international allies," and would take place "on Ohlone Territory in Oakland, California."
Indeed, Oakland is notable both for the preponderance of left-of-center activist groups headquartered there, and for being located within the territorial boundaries ostensibly subject to the Shuumi Land Tax. This is a voluntarily levy (not a genuine tax) paid to the Sogorea Te' Land Trust, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that reported $12.5 million in revenue and $54.2 million in net assets in 2024. The stated purpose of this contribution is to facilitate the "rematriation" of "stolen" and "unceded" land back to the Ohlone people, who traditionally lived in what is now the heavily urbanized Easy Bay. The Sogorea Te' Land Trust describes Oakland and surrounding locales as "one of the most inflated real estate markets on Turtle Island."
A calculator on the Land Trust's website provides institutions (including nonprofits) with their recommended annual Shuumi Land Tax contribution.
The Sierra Club--which has promoted land acknowledgements alongside efforts to "decolonize" and "indigenize" the environmental movement--is headquartered in Oakland. Its 2024 total expenses would warrant an annual Shuumi contribution of $1.7 million.
The University of California, Berkeley's undergraduate admissions department has declared that its campus sits on "the ancestral and unceded land of the Chochenyo Ohlone," that the school benefits "from the use and occupation of this land," and that "we affirm Indigenous sovereignty." The recommended Shuumi contribution for the University of California Berkeley Foundation in 2024 would be $4.4 million.
One notable charity which has recommended the Shuumi Land Tax as a method of contributing "to the reparation of Indigenous sovereignty and the rematriation of Indigenous land" is Bay Area Legal Aid. Asserting that its own offices are located on "stolen land" that "was never ceded," the group blames "the United States and previous colonizers" for inflicting "generational harms" upon "the original stewards of Turtle Island." In 2024, Bay Area Legal Aid received 90 percent of its $31.4 million total revenue from government grants, yet it openly disputes the sovereignty and legitimacy of the very authorities colleting the tax dollars which underwrite its operations.
Thoughts and questions
***
Speech is not violence, and violence is not speech.
***
The point here is certainly not to minimize any of the historical sufferings endured by American Indian nations, or any of the socioeconomic issues many Native Americans currently face. Nor is it to question their legitimate right to tribal sovereignty. Like every assemblage of people in the history of humanity, America never has been and never will be infallible in its conduct. Whether a performative land acknowledgement serves any purpose in ameliorating this is a separate question.
Rather, it's about those who dispute (or outright deny) the very right of the United States to exist--and by extension the right of those of us who proudly consider ourselves Americans to live here. Charges of white supremacist genocide and settler-colonial illegitimacy on "Turtle Island" seek to paint the United States as a singular force of destructive and racist avarice. Typically, Israel gets lumped in as well. It's a false and tremendously harmful narrative, which has continued to gain traction in the often-symbiotic worlds of academia and left-wing nonprofit activism.
With respect to the Turtle Island Liberation Front specifically, California State University, San Bernardino professor Brian Levin told the Los Angeles Times that the allegations reminded him of the 1970s Weather Underground. An offshoot of peaceful protests against (among other things) the Vietnam War, the "Weathermen" planted bombs at government buildings and other targets.
This is a good comparison. Both were fringe groups that emerged out of an increasingly agitated and radical--though largely peaceful--ideological environment characterized by marked hostility toward the United States and its global influence. If the allegations against the Turtle Island Liberation Front are valid, then--like the Weather Underground--they (allegedly) took a fateful step toward violence.
Do those who contribute to that volatile environment through their inflammatory rhetoric bear any responsibility for violent or otherwise illegal acts carried out in accordance with the radical ideology that they espouse?
Not in any legal sense, generally--and rightfully so. The First Amendment's protections are broad, which is something all Americans should be grateful for. Outside of some very specific circumstances, the government has no business restricting or regulating political opinions, even offensive or corrosive ones. Speech is not violence, and violence is not speech.
But perhaps such groups and individuals do bear a certain moral responsibility for the fallout from their reckless language--assigned in the court of public opinion rather than a court of law, with the consequences being scorn and opprobrium rather than censorship and liability. Free speech cuts both ways, and deleterious extremism should be called out for what it is. This applies in equal measure to both the right and left.
The members of the Turtle Island Liberation Front--and they alone--are responsible for any alleged crimes that may have been committed. That said, those who invoke the phrase "Turtle Island" in a conscious effort to delegitimize the United States (and often Israel too) in the most outrageous and incendiary language would do well to look themselves in the mirror and ask: what did you expect would happen?
* * *
Robert Stilson
Robert runs several of CRC's specialized projects. Originally from Indiana, he has a B.A. from Hanover College and a J.D. from University of Richmond School of Law, where he graduated magna cum laude.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/turtle-island-and-the-legitimacy-of-america/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: Leveraging Japan's Appetite for U.S. Investment and Partnership in Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology
WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Jan. 13, 2026:* * *
Leveraging Japan's Appetite for U.S. Investment and Partnership in Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology
By Makoto Tsujiguchi
The United States is the world's largest market for healthcare and pharmaceuticals, and a global leader in biotechnology research and startups. The opportunities and challenges in this sector make it a core area for U.S.-Japan cooperation, particularly on key policy issues related to supply chains and innovation. Some initiatives are already underway. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Jan. 13, 2026: * * * Leveraging Japan's Appetite for U.S. Investment and Partnership in Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology By Makoto Tsujiguchi The United States is the world's largest market for healthcare and pharmaceuticals, and a global leader in biotechnology research and startups. The opportunities and challenges in this sector make it a core area for U.S.-Japan cooperation, particularly on key policy issues related to supply chains and innovation. Some initiatives are already underway.For example, collaboration in securing pharmaceutical and biotechnology supply chains was featured in the Memorandum of Cooperation Regarding the Technology Prosperity Deal Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Japan, discussing the Technology Prosperity Deal announced during the U.S.-Japan summit meeting in October 2025. The Japan Bank for International Cooperation has launched the Japan Strategic Investment Facility, including pharmaceuticals alongside other strategic areas, as part of plans to implement the Japanese government's pledge to invest $550 billion in the United States by 2029. Japan's public and private sectors have demonstrated a resilient appetite for collaboration with the United States, responding flexibly to changes in policy and business environments. The two countries can leverage this appetite to jointly strengthen their economic security and competitiveness in three ways: building trusted supply chains, deepening the innovation ecosystem in the United States, and expanding opportunities in the Japanese market.
Trusted Supply Chains
Despite its strength in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, the United States faces manufacturing challenges, including dependence on China for key inputs, which the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology has identified as a national security risk. In response, the Trump administration has strongly promoted a return of manufacturing through potential tariffs, regulatory streamlining for domestic facilities, and public pressure on pharmaceutical companies to expand production domestically. In addition, the BIOSECURE Act provision was enacted in December 2025 as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. It prohibits the U.S. government from contracting with or procuring from biotechnology companies of concern. Now, companies are under growing pressure to conduct due diligence and restructure research and development (R&D) and manufacturing networks.
Japanese trends align closely with today's U.S. push to realign pharmaceutical supply chains. Since the Covid-19 pandemic, mounting pressure to reassess supply chains has quietly given Japanese companies time to prepare for--and commit to--investment in the United States, both in contract manufacturing of pharmaceuticals and in-house manufacturing capacity.
Regarding contract manufacturing, contract development and manufacturing organizations (CDMOs), specialized manufacturers with dedicated facilities and expertise, present a promising opportunity for Japanese companies. CDMOs play an increasingly important role, especially for smaller players, including startups. As demand grows for antibody drugs, mRNA vaccines, and cell and gene therapies, manufacturing has become more complex. The U.S. pharmaceutical CDMO market is expected to roughly double to around $83 billion over the next decade, driving active participation in the United States by foreign companies.
A flagship example is Fujifilm's $3.2 billion biomanufacturing project in North Carolina, which began operations in September 2025. The company plans to double its capacity by 2028, making it one of the largest biologics CDMO facilities in the country. The facility has already seen robust demand, including a $3 billion contract with Regeneron. It will create 1,400 new, highly skilled local jobs and partner with local community colleges to develop talent. Another example is Ajinomoto's 2025 acquisition of the Ohio-based gene-therapy CDMO Forge Biologics Holdings for about $545 million.
For in-house pharmaceutical production, Japan is also reinforcing U.S. supply chains in advanced modalities, next-generation therapies such as biologics and cell and gene therapies. Kyowa Kirin is investing up to $530 million in a new biologics drug-substance plant in North Carolina, scheduled to start operations in 2027. Takeda is investing $230 million to scale up its plasma-derived therapies facility in Los Angeles, California, and it has also announced plans to invest about $30 billion in its U.S. operations over the next five years.
Japanese companies' appetite for U.S. activity remains high, and trends suggest that U.S. investment will likely continue, reflecting in part the success of state-level promotion. For example, Shionogi has begun considering a new antibiotic manufacturing plant, and other companies are in discussions at the state level about additional CDMO projects. Going forward, the $550 billion U.S.-Japan strategic framework could help accelerate investment in these sectors. However, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology are not among the priority areas listed in the October leaders' fact sheet, which suggests that clarifying access pathways and promoting public-private coordination will be essential for Japanese firms to make effective use of the framework.
Co-Innovation Ecosystem
To accelerate innovation, robust R&D and faster commercialization, and real-world adoption are critical. The U.S. biotech ecosystem faces headwinds: Biotech venture funding is expected to decline sharply in 2025, and it remains hard for biotech startups to go public. Some experts warn of negative longer-term impacts from reduced research funding and lower policy and market predictability. Even so, with average discovery-to-approval timelines often exceeding a decade, companies invest and build pipelines with a long-term view of market dynamics rather than reacting to short-term policy shifts. Japanese capital plays important roles as a funding source and exit pathways for startups, and the Japanese government is also stepping up its efforts to support the expansion of Japanese startups in the United States.
Efforts by Japanese companies to embed themselves in the U.S. innovation ecosystem have remained especially active. In addition to their traditional commercial and clinical footprints, these firms have rapidly established open-innovation front-line bases and joined local communities in hubs such as the West Coast and Boston since 2023. New or additional offices have been established by companies such as Astellas, Meiji Seika Pharma, Kissei, Daiichi Sankyo, and NS Pharma. Incubators such as LabCentral or BioLabs also function as key gateways for them to connect with startups.
Corporate venture capital (CVC) is another tool to connect with the U.S. innovation dynamics. Minority investments through CVC are used not only for financial returns but also for strategic purposes such as deeper intelligence gathering and future partnership building. Takeda and Astellas have operated CVCs since the 2000s. More recently, Eisai and Ono Pharmaceutical established and formalized CVC functions in the early 2020s. In 2023, Chugai Pharmaceutical established the $200 million Chugai Venture Fund, which targets cutting-edge drug-discovery and enabling technologies, from treatments for complex nervous-system diseases to next-generation gene editing.
At the same time, Japan aims to become a source of startups, not just capital. For Japanese startups with groundbreaking early-stage technologies, entering the U.S. ecosystem offers access to a large market, efficient and abundant funding sources, talent and strong networks, and growth opportunities. The Japanese government has shifted course and will actively support Japanese startups moving into the U.S. market until domestic market conditions are fully prepared for startups' scale-up, intending to double private investment in drug-discovery startups and create 10 emerging biotech companies with enterprise values above Yen10 billion ($660 million) by 2028.
Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan (MHLW) has extended the Medical Innovation Support Office program, promoting ventures and academia to commercialize pharmaceuticals and related products into a three-year initiative for FY 2025-FY 2027. It will increase its U.S. presence and assist Japanese entrepreneurs and venture capitalists, including by running a newly introduced acceleration program, Direct Flight, in Boston, San Diego, and Philadelphia. In parallel, the Japan External Trade Organization utilizes its existing acceleration program, J-StarX, and the Global Acceleration Hub program to assist drug-discovery startups entering the U.S. market.
The framework may be complex, but MHLW's stronger engagement has broadened support for startups' overseas expansion. Recent examples illustrate the potential:
* RegCell, a Treg-reprogramming startup and a past participant in Direct Flight, relocated its headquarters from Japan to California in March to accelerate U.S. clinical development and fundraising.
* Cellaid Therapeutics, a hematopoietic stem-cell therapy company, plans to begin U.S. clinical trials following a recent $7 million financing round.
* Shinobi Therapeutics, a Kyoto University spinout focused on iPS-cell-based therapies, moved its headquarters to California in 2023 and raised $51 million in Series A funding.
Growing numbers of Japanese startups and entrepreneurs are entering and investing in the U.S. market, broadening and diversifying the bilateral innovation partnership. The policy aim of the Japanese government is to create more of such success stories and transform its own ecosystem, but sustained and sufficient commitment from both the public and private sectors will be essential.
Japan's Domestic Base and Opportunities for U.S. Companies
Like the United States, Japan faces challenges such as dependence on specific countries, including China, for pharmaceutical ingredients and limited domestic manufacturing capacity. Alongside enhancing collaboration with the United States and other partners in joint research, standards-setting, and supply-chain rebuilding, it is also building up its own drug-discovery and manufacturing capabilities to bolster resilience.
The Takaichi administration released its first Comprehensive Economic Measures to Build a "Strong Japanese Economy" in November, setting out policies for urgent supply-chain risk assessments and the establishment of stable domestic supply structures to ensure health and medical security. The government has positioned the pharmaceutical industry as a growth and strategic backbone sector and will mobilize resources to advance R&D and develop domestic manufacturing facilities, including more than \152 billion ($1 billion) in the FY 2025 supplementary budget. Looking ahead, under the Council for Japan's Growth Strategy launched by the Takaichi administration, the government is expected to develop measures to promote public-private investment in strategic areas such as drug discovery and biotechnology this year.
While reflecting a stronger economic-security orientation and a larger budget under the current administration, this approach maintains the direction proposed by the Council of the Concept for Drug Discovery Capabilities established under the Kishida administration in 2024. Concrete policies are already being implemented. The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry announced the selected recipients for its regenerative-medicine CDMO subsidy in July. MHLW boosted funding for drug discovery and stable supply through a Yen42 billion supplementary budget in FY 2024. The Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA), Japan's pharmaceutical regulator, has worked to streamline the approval process, and review timelines for new active substances are now among the fastest in advanced economies, though this is not widely recognized.
Japan faces a pivotal moment to maintain and enhance its attractiveness as both a market and a manufacturing base. It is the world's third-largest pharmaceutical market. Although growth is relatively flat due to population decline, its universal health-insurance system provides nationwide access to medicines, resulting in defined daily doses per capita that are among the highest globally. Reflecting Japan's strategic weight, U.S. firms account for about 26 percent of sales of the country's top 20 prescription drugs, and the United States ran a pharmaceutical trade surplus with Japan of about $3 billion in 2024.
To further develop this business relationship, business leaders at the 62nd U.S.-Japan Business Conference in October urged the Japanese government to reform pricing systems that better reflect the value of innovation and to improve the transparency of drug-review processes. A new public-private council to enhance Japan's drug-discovery capability was launched in June and plans to discuss necessary measures. The PMDA opened its second overseas office in Washington, D.C., in November 2024 to promote bilateral and multilateral regulatory harmonization and to help U.S. companies navigate Japan's regulatory system.
Conclusion
Japan's commitment to strengthening onshore capacity in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, from research through manufacturing, is not accidental; it reflects both a harsher global environment for pharmaceuticals and domestic drivers pushing Japan in this direction. Seizing this moment, sustained bilateral dialogue on regulatory coordination, supply-chain resilience, trade barriers, and startup acceleration efforts will further encourage Japan's private sector to deepen engagement. At the same time, uncertainty in U.S. life sciences policies--including tariffs, procurement restrictions, and shifts in research funding--could dampen corporate investment decisions, making policy predictability and clear implementation pathways even more essential to continue efforts to accelerate and deepen collaboration.
* * *
Makoto Tsujiguchi is a visiting fellow with the Japan Chairfrom the Japan Business Federation (Keidanren) at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/leveraging-japans-appetite-us-investment-and-partnership-pharmaceuticals-and-biotechnology
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: China's Rare Earth Campaign Against Japan
WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Jan. 13, 2026:* * *
China's Rare Earth Campaign Against Japan
By Gracelin Baskaran and Meredith Schwartz
On Tuesday, January 6, China targeted Japan with new export restrictions on dual-use technologies, including rare earth elements, permanent magnets, and other critical minerals required for the production of defense technologies. The move is widely seen as a response to comments made in November by Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, who stated that an attack on Taiwan could ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Jan. 13, 2026: * * * China's Rare Earth Campaign Against Japan By Gracelin Baskaran and Meredith Schwartz On Tuesday, January 6, China targeted Japan with new export restrictions on dual-use technologies, including rare earth elements, permanent magnets, and other critical minerals required for the production of defense technologies. The move is widely seen as a response to comments made in November by Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, who stated that an attack on Taiwan couldconstitute an "existential threat" to Japan and justify a military response. These retaliatory measures underscore rising tensions between Beijing and Tokyo and serve as a pointed warning from China to countries that take explicit positions on cross-strait relations. While previous Chinese export controls have largely been in response to trade disputes, this latest iteration ties export restrictions to the Taiwan issue, underlining that Beijing's critical minerals strategy is closely intertwined with its broader military objectives.
Q1: How have tensions between Japan and China escalated in the period leading up to the most recent export restrictions?
A1: Tensions between Japan and China have sharply escalated following remarks by Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in the National Diet linking a potential Chinese attack on Taiwan to a serious threat to Japan's own security--a formulation that Beijing saw as justification for Japanese military involvement in a Taiwan contingency. Tensions continued to escalate in November and December, marked by a series of incidents near disputed islands along the East China Sea and the Philippine Sea between Japan and Taiwan. The most serious episode occurred when Chinese J-15 fighter jets locked their radar onto Japanese aircraft near Japan's Okinawa islands in the East China Sea--a move widely interpreted as a direct threat and a potential signal of imminent attack.
In the final days of 2025, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) completed its "Justice Mission 2025" exercises simulating the seizure and blockade of Taiwan. Taiwan's Ministry of National Defense detected 130 PLA aircraft, 14 PLA navy ships, and 8 Chinese coastguard ships off the coast of Taiwan between December 29 and December 30. The drills took place just days after the United States announced the sale of a large weapons package to Taiwan worth $11 billion. Several countries voiced their opposition to China's aggressive posture, with Japan, Australia, and the United Kingdom calling for restraint.
The clashes over territorial and security issues, including disputes over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands and earlier diplomatic rows in 2010 and 2012, show a pattern of recurring tensions in China-Japan relations. However, the current context differs: Shifts in domestic politics in both countries, especially Japan's evolving security posture and China's heightened emphasis on Taiwan as core to its national strategy, make de-escalation more difficult and meaningful bilateral trust harder to restore.
Q2: What is distinctive about the latest iteration of Chinese export controls?
A2: China's latest export restrictions apply to a wide range of products, prohibiting the export of any dual-use item that could contribute to Japan's military capabilities. Beijing's expansive definition of dual-use materials encompasses critical inputs such as rare earths, gallium, germanium, graphite, advanced manufacturing equipment, and magnets. It remains unclear how Beijing intends to implement such broad restrictions; however, the rare earth and critical minerals sector is one sector Beijing has effectively tightened in the past.
While China has repeatedly imposed and tightened critical mineral export controls in recent years--primarily as a coercive tool in trade disputes with the United States--this most recent round marks a shift in both scope and justification. Previous measures, including new restrictions in December 2024 following U.S. semiconductor export controls and in April 2025 in response to President Donald Trump's tariff increases on Chinese imports, were framed largely as trade retaliation. In contrast, the current restrictions are explicitly tied to China's foreign-policy signaling, with Beijing asserting that Japan violated its core national security and sovereignty interests. The recent restrictions are most reminiscent of China's use of rare earth export controls during the 2010 Japan-China crisis, which resulted from a maritime sovereignty dispute near the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea.
Q3: How reliant is Japan on Chinese rare earth and magnet imports?
A3: Since 2010, Japan has made meaningful progress to fortify its rare earth supply chains against Chinese coercion through investments in both domestic refining and recycling capabilities as well as mining and processing operations abroad. Japan invested $250 million into Australia's Lynas Rare Earths in 2011. Over the last 15 years, Lynas has expanded its geographic footprint from the Mount Weld mine in Australia to processing, refining, and magnet manufacturing facilities in Malaysia and the United States. However, claims that Japan has successfully de-risked its rare earth supply chains and reduced reliance on China are misguided.
Japan is the largest importer of rare earth metals in the world. In 2024, Japan imported over 5.2 million kilograms of rare earth metals from China, equivalent to 63 percent of its total imports of rare earth metals. According to World Bank data, Japan imports 32 percent of its rare earth metals from Vietnam. However, there's a heavy interdependence between Japan, Vietnam, and China for mining rare earths, processing them, and manufacturing them into permanent magnets.
For example, the Dong Pao mine in Vietnam is a joint venture between Toyota Tsusho and Sojitz. Although it is one of the world's largest rare earth element deposits and has repeatedly attracted foreign interest, it has struggled to enter consistent production. In 2022, Vietnam produced 3,800 tons of rare earth oxides, all of which were imported by China for its own processing and downstream industries. Nonetheless, there is new pressure that could change the supply chain. Vietnam recently passed a law to ban the export of unprocessed rare earths effective January 1, 2026.
While Japan has invested in the midstream in Vietnam, China remains part of the supply chain. Between 2013 and 2017, Japan's Shin-Etsu Chemical invested $117 million in a rare earth magnet plant and a rare earth refining facility in Hai Phong Province in northern Vietnam. The facilities have a combined annual capacity of approximately 2,000 metric tons. Shin-Etsu operates a rare earth refining operation as part of a closed-loop facility, where the separated feedstock feeds its magnet manufacturing plant rather than being exported. Still, it's unclear if it is dependent on rare earths from China as feedstock. Greater supply-chain transparency in the region will be key going forward.
Q4: Which strategies are strengthening Japan's critical mineral resilience?
A4: Japan is increasingly pairing policy discipline with technological innovation to shore up rare earth security. Beyond reshoring magnet manufacturing and tightening supply-chain partnerships, Tokyo is now moving into frontier extraction. In January 2026, Japan will begin deep-sea rare earth mining tests in the Pacific Ocean near Minamitori Island, targeting deposits at depths of roughly 6,000 meters.
The government of Japan has frequently employed a strategy of joint investment in critical mineral projects with long-term offtake agreements to secure supply for rare earths and other critical minerals. Japan Organization for Metals and Energy Security's (JOGMEC) financing comes with offtake requirements that are designed to ensure stable access to energy and mineral resources for Japan--including oil, natural gas, and critical minerals. When Japanese state funding is provided, a portion of the project's production must be allocated to Japanese companies; in the case of equity investments, it is typically proportionate to their equity stake in the project.
Japanese auto manufacturers have also been entering long-term offtake agreements to diversify critical mineral and rare earths sourcing: Toyota partnered with Canadian Matamec Exploration to develop rare earth deposits in Quebec, Mitsubishi entered a binding agreement with Frontier Lithium for lithium development in Ontario, and Hyundai signed a seven-year offtake agreement with Arafura for its Nolans rare earths project in Australia.
Nonetheless, Japan's continued reliance on China's rare earth industry became apparent in April of 2025, when China cut off U.S. and Western original equipment manufacturers and auto-part manufacturers from seven heavy rare earth minerals and vital magnet inputs. U.S., European, and Japanese car manufacturers reported supply disruptions and even production pauses due to the restricted exports. Japanese automakers Nissan and Suzuki Motor reported supply disruptions due to China's rare earth restrictions, with Suzuki suspending production of its Swift model.
Q5: What are the broader implications of the minerals export controls for the security of Taiwan?
A5: China's rare earth export restrictions on Japan should be understood as a warning shot to countries contemplating a more active role in regional politics or greater solidarity with Taiwan. By selectively leveraging its dominance over critical mineral supply chains, China is signaling that political alignment carries material consequences. The message is not limited to Tokyo: States that voice support for Taiwan or take steps perceived as interference in Beijing's core interests risk exposure to economic retaliation framed as regulatory or commercial action. This approach allows China to deter political behavior it opposes without resorting to military force, reinforcing a form of coercive diplomacy in which access to critical inputs becomes a tool to shape regional decisionmaking and constrain the space for collective support of Taiwan.
A number of countries that have shown support for Taiwan in recent years, including the United States, Japan, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and members of the European Union, remain particularly reliant on China for rare earths. China's willingness to weaponize access to these materials introduces a powerful constraint on its strategic calculus. Faced with the prospect that export restrictions could directly undermine their own industrial bases, energy security, and economic growth, these governments may be forced to reassess how far and how visibly they are prepared to intervene in a Taiwan contingency. Mineral dependence has become a deterrent lever, shaping political behavior well before any military conflict occurs.
Q6: What are the takeaways for the United States?
A6: First, China's rare earth restrictions underscore that economic statecraft is now a central element of deterrence and coercion, not a peripheral tool. Beijing is demonstrating that it can shape allied behavior and crisis dynamics through supply-chain leverage well before any military move against Taiwan. For the United States, this means Taiwan deterrence cannot rest on military posture alone; it should also account for how economic pressure could constrain allied decisionmaking in a crisis.
Second, the United States should view this as confirmation that supply-chain resilience is a national security imperative, not an industrial policy add-on. Diversifying rare earth and critical mineral supply chains through domestic production, allied sourcing, stockpiling, and processing capacity directly strengthens deterrence by shrinking Beijing's coercive tool kit. Without this groundwork, U.S. commitments risk being tested by economic pressure rather than military confrontation. Building supply-chain resilience takes time; after over a decade of strategic investment and supply-chain diversification, Japan is still working to eliminate its reliance on Chinese materials. Achieving U.S. critical minerals security requires long-term reindustrialization--there are no short-cut solutions.
And finally, China's actions highlight the need for pre-crisis coordination with allies, not ad hoc responses after restrictions are imposed. China's recent escalation in the Taiwan Strait, coupled with coercive export controls, is a sobering reminder that reunification is a near-term military goal for Beijing, not a hypothetical scenario. Now is the time for Washington to work with partners to establish shared contingency planning, mutual support mechanisms, and clear signaling around economic coercion, so that export controls do not fracture allied unity as tension heats up in the Indo-Pacific.
* * *
Gracelin Baskaran is director of the Critical Minerals Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Meredith Schwartz is an associate fellow for the Critical Minerals Security Program at CSIS.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-rare-earth-campaign-against-japan
[Category: ThinkTank]
American Action Forum Issues Commentary: CBO Offers More Pessimistic View of Economy Than Other Forecasters
WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on Jan. 13, 2026:* * *
CBO Offers More Pessimistic View of Economy Than Other Forecasters
By Jordan Haring
Executive Summary
* The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has released a new set of economic projections for 2026 to 2028, showing a more pessimistic forecast than its own September projections as well as recent projections from the Federal Reserve and the administration's Office of Management and Budget.
* CBO expects real gross domestic product (real GDP) growth to total 2.2 percent in 2026 as the positive ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on Jan. 13, 2026: * * * CBO Offers More Pessimistic View of Economy Than Other Forecasters By Jordan Haring Executive Summary * The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has released a new set of economic projections for 2026 to 2028, showing a more pessimistic forecast than its own September projections as well as recent projections from the Federal Reserve and the administration's Office of Management and Budget. * CBO expects real gross domestic product (real GDP) growth to total 2.2 percent in 2026 as the positiveimpacts of the One Big Beautiful Bill materialize; real GDP growth will stabilize around 1.8 percent per year thereafter.
* CBO expects the unemployment rate to rise from 4.4 percent today to 4.6 percent by the end of 2026 and then fall to 4.5 percent by the end of 2027 and to 4.4 percent by the end of 2028.
* CBO expects inflation to cool over the next few years while the average interest rate on 10-year Treasury notes will rise from 4.2 percent in 2026 to 4.3 percent in 2027 and 2028 as term premiums rise from the low levels seen in recent years.
Introduction
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has released a new set of economic projections for 2026 to 2028. The forecast updates CBO's September 2025 economic forecast to incorporate tariff policy changes since August and the economic impact of the record 43-day government shutdown, among other policy changes. Overall, CBO's projections are more pessimistic than its September forecast, as well as the Federal Reserve's December 2025 projections and the administration's Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) August 2025 forecast.
Comparing CBO's Latest Economic Projections to Other Forecasts
Since CBO's September 2025 economic forecast, its outlook for fourth-quarter -over fourth quarter real gross domestic product (real GDP) growth is unchanged. In 2026, CBO projects 2.2-percent real GDP growth as the One Big Beautiful Bill's (OBBB) boost to consumption, private investment, and federal purchases materializes. In addition, the resumption of federal government activities following the 43-day government shutdown has shifted some government spending from late 2025 to early 2026, boosting projected real GDP growth. CBO notes that higher tariffs and changes in immigration partially offset real GDP growth in 2026. The Federal Reserve expects real GDP growth of 2.3 percent and OMB forecasts 3.2-percent growth in 2026.
In 2027 and 2028, CBO expects real GDP growth to slow to 1.8 percent per year as the OBBB's impact on aggregate demand wanes and net immigration falls. The Federal Reserve projects 2.0-percent real GDP growth in 2027 and 1.9 percent in 2028, while OMB forecasts 3.1-percent growth in both years.
CBO expects the unemployment rate to rise from 4.4 percent today to 4.6 percent by the end of 2026. It expects the OBBB's provisions that reduce the effective marginal tax rate on labor income - including no tax on tips and overtime pay - to increase the incentive to work and thus boost employment this year. Lower projected net immigration and other factors will negatively offset the OBBB's positive impact on employment, however, leading to an increase in the near-term unemployment rate. CBO expects the unemployment rate to fall to 4.5 percent by the end of 2027 and to 4.4 percent by the end of 2028, in line with its previous forecast.
The Federal Reserve expects the unemployment rate to total 4.4 percent in 2026 and then fall to 4.2 percent in 2027 and 2028. On an annual basis, OMB expects the unemployment rate to total 3.9 percent in 2027 and 3.7 percent in 2027 and 2028.
CBO expects inflation to cool over the next few years. It expects Personal Consumption Expenditure(PCE) price index inflation, on a fourth-quarter over fourth-quarter basis, to fall from 2.8 percent in 2025 to 2.7 percent in 2026. From there, PCE inflation will fall to 2.3 percent in 2027 and to 2.1 percent in 2028. In September, CBO projected PCE inflation would fall from 3.1 percent in 2025 to 2.4 in 2026 and then stabilize at the Federal Reserve's 2-percent target by 2027. In both forecasts, CBO expected a softening of PCE inflation, though its latest PCE inflation projections are slightly more pessimistic than its September forecast.
The Federal Reserve projects 2.4-percent PCE inflation in 2026, 2.1 percent in 2027, and then expects inflation to stabilize at its 2-percent target by 2028 and over the long term. On an annual basis, OMB expects PCE inflation to stabilize at the 2-percent target in 2026 and beyond.
CBO expects Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation, on a fourth-quarter over fourth-quarter basis, to fall from 3.0 percent in 2025 to 2.8 percent in 2026. CPI inflation will continue to soften to 2.4 percent in 2027 and to 2.3 percent in 2028. In September, CBO projected CPI inflation would fall from 3.1 percent in 2025 to 2.4 percent in 2026 and then stabilize at 2 percent by 2027. In both forecasts, CBO expected a softening of CPI inflation, though its latest CPI inflation projections are slightly more pessimistic than its September forecast. On an annual basis, OMB projects 2.2-percent CPI inflation in 2026, 2.3 percent in 2027, and 2.2 percent in 2028.
In response to modest inflation and a slowing labor market, the Federal Reserve's Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) cut interest rates three times in 2025, by 25 basis points each time. The FOMC's 75-basis point cut lowered the federal funds rate from a range of 4.25-4.50 percent to 3.50-3.75 percent. The Federal Reserve's latest economic projections suggest more interest rate cuts are likely over the next few years, with the federal funds rate projected to fall to a median of 3.4 percent in 2026 and 3.1 percent in 2027 and 2028.
The average interest rate on 10-year Treasury notes remained above 4 percent for most of 2025 and has averaged 4.2 percent in the early days of 2026. CBO expects the interest rate on 10-year Treasuries to average 4.2 percent in 2026 before ticking up slightly to 4.3 percent in 2027 and 2028 as term premiums rise from the low levels seen in recent years. In September, CBO forecasted a 4.1-percent average 10-year rate in 2026, 4.0 percent in 2027, and 3.9 percent in 2028, so its latest, higher interest rate forecast is slightly more pessimistic. OMB expects the average interest rate on 10-year Treasury notes to total 3.8 percent in 2026, 3.6 percent in 2027, and 3.5 percent in 2028.
* * *
Jordan Haring is the Director of Fiscal Policy at the American Action Forum
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/cbo-offers-more-pessimistic-view-of-economy-than-other-forecasters/
[Category: Think Tank]