Think Tanks
Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Manhattan Institute Issues Commentary to Wall Street Journal: American Middle Class Keeps Getting Richer
NEW YORK, April 9 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on April 7, 2026, by senior fellow Jason L. Riley to the Wall Street Journal:* * *
The American Middle Class Keeps Getting Richer
Study after study finds that the populists of left and right are wrong in their predictions of doom.
*
Capitalism is rigged. China is eating our lunch. The middle class is shrinking. This is the constant refrain from doom-and-gloom populists on the left and right, but is it true?
Earlier this year, the Journal editorial page told you about a study from the American Enterprise ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, April 9 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on April 7, 2026, by senior fellow Jason L. Riley to the Wall Street Journal: * * * The American Middle Class Keeps Getting Richer Study after study finds that the populists of left and right are wrong in their predictions of doom. * Capitalism is rigged. China is eating our lunch. The middle class is shrinking. This is the constant refrain from doom-and-gloom populists on the left and right, but is it true? Earlier this year, the Journal editorial page told you about a study from the American EnterpriseInstitute's Stephen Rose and Scott Winship that pushes back on that glum narrative. This week the Journal's news department followed up with a front-page story highlighting that research, which demonstrates upward mobility in the U.S. is alive and kicking.
Messrs. Rose and Winship divided households into five categories--poor or near poor, lower middle class, core middle class, upper middle class and rich. Technically, the middle class has been getting smaller, but that's only because more families have ascended the income ladder.
"We find that the 'core' middle class has shrunk--but so too has the share of Americans with income too low to reach the middle class," the authors conclude. "The shrinking core middle class is due to a booming upper-middle class. Only the relatively worse-off parts of the middle class have shrunk--and by less than the upper-middle class has grown."
Continue reading the entire piece here at the Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-american-middle-class-keeps-getting-richer-7f57dcff?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/the-american-middle-class-keeps-getting-richer
[Category: ThinkTank]
Jamestown Foundation Posts Commentary: PRC Expands Financial Footprint in the South Caucasus
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on April 8, 2026, by Nino Lezhava, executive director of Elevate Crossroads and associate partner at Elevate Consulting Group, in its Eurasia Daily Monitor:* * *
PRC Expands Financial Footprint in the South Caucasus
Executive Summary:
* In March, four Georgian banks, including Cartu Bank, gained direct membership in the People's Republic of China's (PRC's) Cross-Border Interbank Payment System, which facilitates renminbi (RMB) clearing and settlement under the supervision of the People's Bank of China.
* Across ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on April 8, 2026, by Nino Lezhava, executive director of Elevate Crossroads and associate partner at Elevate Consulting Group, in its Eurasia Daily Monitor: * * * PRC Expands Financial Footprint in the South Caucasus Executive Summary: * In March, four Georgian banks, including Cartu Bank, gained direct membership in the People's Republic of China's (PRC's) Cross-Border Interbank Payment System, which facilitates renminbi (RMB) clearing and settlement under the supervision of the People's Bank of China. * Acrossthe South Caucasus, the PRC is broadening its economic influence, though Armenia remains less integrated. The PRC's internationalization of the RMB aims to reduce international reliance on the U.S. dollar, which the PRC views as a matter of national security.
* While the South Caucasian decision to more broadly engage with PRC financial structures is driven by pragmatic economic considerations, it also creates conditions that are permissive of sanctions evasion. It reduces the political cost of aligning with non-Western financial networks.
In March, four Georgian banks, including Cartu Bank, gained direct membership in the People's Republic of China's (PRC) Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS), which facilitates renminbi (RMB) clearing and settlement under the supervision of the People's Bank of China (PBoC) (see EDM, January 23, 2025; National Bank of Georgia, December 26, 2025; CIPS, accessed April 8). While complementary to SWIFT, CIPS also enables messaging independent of oversight from Western institutions, offering participants insulation from sanctions (Civil Georgia, July 18, 2025). Authoritarian regimes in Moscow, Tehran, and Minsk already exploit this system to bypass U.S.-led sanctions and maintain financial stability (The Moscow Times, March 21, 2024; OC Media, March 10). CIPS also efficiently facilitates financing for the One Belt One Road initiative, while promoting global RMB use (China Daily, August 23, 2024). For the PRC, facilitating access, even for a small economy such as Georgia's, and for the South Caucasus as a whole, constitutes a strategic gain.
The PRC's integration strategy in Georgia deploys a dual approach that embeds institutional and commercial influence. The National Bank of Georgia recently gained access to the China Interbank Bond Market (CIBM). It opened accounts with the PBoC and the CIBM depository infrastructure (Georgia Today, February 13). Approximately five percent of Georgia's international foreign exchange reserves are now invested in RMB (National Bank of Georgia, February 12; Business Media, March 1). At a glance, this is a relatively small proportion, reflecting economic diversification. Politically, it is more significant, as Tbilisi demonstrates a willingness to integrate with PRC economic structures.
PRC commercial presence strengthens its financial footprint in Georgia and provides it with institutional access. The Hualing Group owns Basis Bank in Georgia, providing UnionPay services that facilitate RMB-denominated transactions for tourists and local businesses (Basis Bank, accessed April 8). Discussions are ongoing regarding additional acquisitions, including Liberty Bank.
Beijing's financial cooperation with Baku is also on an upward trend. As Azerbaijan's third-largest trading partner, the PRC saw bilateral trade reach $4.87 billion in 2025, with $420 million recorded in January alone (Azertac, March 29). Beijing and Baku are exploring a joint investment fund between the Azerbaijan Investment Holding and the China Silk Road Fund to finance infrastructure, logistics, energy, and industrial projects (Day.Az, March 32). Their central banks signed a memorandum to expand cooperation in monetary policy, payment systems, and fintech (CBA, September 4, 2025).
Azerbaijan's State Oil Fund (SOFAZ) has steadily increased RMB-denominated investments, from $500 million between 2015 and 2024 to $1.6 billion in 2024 alone (Daily Sabah, July 3, 2015; Caspian-Alpine Society, November 1, 2024). By the end of 2024, the PRC's bond market had grown to $24.6 trillion, becoming the world's second-largest, and SOFAZ's exposure to PRC assets exceeded 3 percent of its portfolio (ABC.az, January 24, 2025). The Chinese Investment Corporation and SOFAZ have also established a framework for sustainable investment models, further strengthening PRC-Azerbaijan relations (APA, September 8, 2025). UnionPay and the Central Bank of Azerbaijan are also enhancing cashless payments and digital infrastructure, further boosting PRC financial influence in Azerbaijan (Central Bank of Azerbaijan, January 30).
Armenia, on the other hand, lags behind its neighbors in PRC financial integration. It is still progressing gradually, but Beijing appears to be prioritizing higher-impact partners, aligning resources to maximize returns and influence. Two Armenian banks, Converse and Akba, have access to UnionPay and have launched operations (Verelq, November 20, 2023). By 2025, the PRC was ranked as Armenia's second- or third-largest trade partner, partly due to the PRC's imports of Armenian minerals. The same year, Armenia joined the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, becoming the final South Caucasian state to do so (Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, accessed April 8).
PRC-led international blocs have also become attractive to Armenia and Azerbaijan. Both countries have sought full membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and BRICS (see EDM, October 16, 23, February 18; CivilNet, September 2, 2025)/[1]
These organizations publicly seek to create alternatives to the existing global financial system, which the U.S. dollar, the euro, and the RMB have long dominated. One of the most tangible expressions of this ambition is the "R5"--a symbolic currency unit representing the Russian ruble, Brazilian real, Indian rupee, South African rand, and the PRC's RNB--the core currencies of founding BRICS members (The European Institute for Asian Studies, December 15, 2025). Armenia's consideration of membership in PRC-led blocs demonstrates that Beijing remains in an advantageous position. Armenia remains a viable target for the PRC's deeper financial integration in the South Caucasus.
The PRC has maintained currency swap and local currency trade agreements with Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia for over a decade and periodically renews them (2023 RMB Internalization Report, accessed April 8). These arrangements allow countries to bypass third-party currencies such as the U.S. dollar or the euro, reducing transaction costs, foreign exchange risks, and dependence on global financial systems dominated by Western currencies. The PRC's central bank has currency swap agreements with dozens of countries, and trillions of dollars in goods trade are now settled in RMB (New Central Asia, January 26). In 2025, the PRC signed local currency settlement agreements with more than 40 countries (The Diplomat, October 24, 2025).
The South Caucasus is contributing to broader de-dollarization efforts and to a parallel financial architecture aimed at competing with Western financial leverage. These developments coincide with the RNB intermittently surpassing the euro as the second-largest currency in global trade finance since late 2023, reaching 5.99 percent in June 2024 and repeatedly reclaiming the number-two position thereafter (Global China Daily, July 30, 2024). While the South Caucasian decision to more broadly engage with PRC financial structures is driven by pragmatic economic considerations, access to liquidity, trade facilitation, and risk diversification, it also creates permissive conditions for sanctions evasion. It reduces the political cost of aligning with non-Western financial networks. This trajectory sits uneasily alongside expanding U.S. and European interest in regional connectivity and infrastructure initiatives, including projects such as the Trans-Caspian International Trade Route (TITR, or the Middle Corridor) and the Trump Route for Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP) (see EDM, October 15, 2025).
The PRC's growing presence in the South Caucasus demonstrates a quiet but deliberate strategy. Through targeted financial instruments and selective partnerships, the PRC is steadily promoting its RMB, banks, and investment influence across the South Caucasus, turning a historically peripheral region into an extension of its economic ecosystem.
[1] BRICS is a loose political-economic grouping originally comprised of Brazil, Russia, India, the PRC, and South Africa, but now comprising 11 member states (BRICS Info, accessed April 8).
* * *
Nino Lezhava is an Associate Partner at Elevate Consulting Group and the Executive Director of Elevate Crossroads, a South Caucasus and the Black Sea-focused advisory platform that provides geopolitical risk analysis, foresight, and strategic intelligence to public and private ventures.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/prc-expands-financial-footprint-in-the-south-caucasus/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Jamestown Foundation Posts Commentary: Ideological Alliance Between Georgian Dream and Fidesz Intensifies
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on April 8, 2026, by journalist Giorgi Menabde in its Eurasia Daily Monitor:* * *
Ideological Alliance Between Georgian Dream and Fidesz Intensifies
Executive Summary:
* Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze attended the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Budapest on March 21, emphasizing Georgian Dream's goal of defending traditional values in alliance with conservative and traditionalist forces in Europe and the United States.
* Georgian Dream considers Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban's ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on April 8, 2026, by journalist Giorgi Menabde in its Eurasia Daily Monitor: * * * Ideological Alliance Between Georgian Dream and Fidesz Intensifies Executive Summary: * Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze attended the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Budapest on March 21, emphasizing Georgian Dream's goal of defending traditional values in alliance with conservative and traditionalist forces in Europe and the United States. * Georgian Dream considers Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban'sFidesz party to be a main ally in fighting against liberals and "Brussels bureaucracy." Hungary is blocking EU attempts to impose sanctions against Georgian Dream for its "anti-democratic trajectory."
* The alliance with conservative and right-wing forces in Europe strengthens the Georgian Dream's position in Georgia, where Christian values traditionally enjoy strong support from a significant portion of voters.
On March 21, Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze addressed the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Budapest. His visit to Hungary lasted only a few hours, as Georgia was preparing for the funeral of Catholicos-Patriarch Ilia II, who died on March 17, with Kobakhidze heading the state funeral commission (see EDM, April 7). Kobakhidze's quick trip demonstrates the importance he attaches to his relationship with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and to Georgia's participation in the "conservative movement" in the United States and Europe.
The annual CPAC Hungary conference began in 2022 and is part of the global expansion of the original U.S.-based CPAC. The 2026 conference, featuring the tagline "On to Victory," presented several influential conservative figures from around the world. In addition to Orban and Kobakhidze, the lineup included Argentinian President Javier Milei, Alice Weidel of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, and far-right Dutch leader Geert Wilders. U.S. President Donald Trump and Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis delivered video addresses.
Kobakhidze's appearance marked his third address at the conference, following speeches in 2024 and 2025. In 2023, then-Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Gharibashvili spoke at the conference, expressing his gratitude to his "dear friend, Prime Minister Orban" and lauding him as "a wise and visionary national leader." He praised Hungary's defense of its national interests and fundamental values before slamming those who propagate "false freedoms" aimed at destroying traditional values (Civil Georgia, May 4, 2023; Tabula, April 27). Recently, however, Garibashvili was sentenced to five years in prison for the legalization of illicit income involving particularly large amounts (1tv.ge January 12).
Addressing the conference, Kobakhidze said that every country "must confront a fundamental question: How can we defend our national interests without losing our values and our traditions?" He added that for Georgia, this question "is not hypothetical," emphasizing,
"Nations remain resilient when they preserve a clear sense of identity and remain faithful to the values that define them." He highlighted the importance of Christianity for Georgia, noting that "the Christian cultural foundation remains central to who we are as a society."
Kobakhidze further highlighted his "hope that Europe will regain its sovereignty, Christian identity, and economic strength before Georgia becomes a member of the European Union." The prime minister then criticized the European Union, stating, "Brussels bureaucracy cannot accept any sovereign government that defends its country's independence and traditional values." He asserted that many European countries "have essentially lost their identity" and praised Hungary for "protecting itself from gender propaganda, immigration, and other vices." He described Hungary's upcoming parliamentary elections as "a watershed" moment not only for Hungary but also for Europe, expressing hope that the vote will take place "without the rough interference of the Brussels bureaucracy."
Kobakhidze thanked Orban "for his steadfast support for Georgia," praising him as a "true warrior" for his nation. He added that Orban's leadership has helped Georgia protect its "democracy, national sovereignty, and identity," and emphasized its importance "not only for Hungary, but for all of Europe." Kobakhidze also wished Orban a "long tenure" as Hungary's leader (Facebook/KobakhidzeOfficial, March 21; Imedi News, March 26).
Orban, who took the stage shortly after, called Kobakhidze a "patriotic champion" who is "in the mouth of the Russian bear." He also attacked both the European Union and "liberals" for trying to "undermine" Georgia. He said that Kobakhidze is "the one who upholds the sovereignty of Georgia" and described the country as the "bravest nation in Europe today" (1tv.ge, March 21). The relationship between Tbilisi and Budapest has deepened in recent years. After returning to Georgia, Kobakhidze told reporters that Hungary "remains the main defender of Georgia's national interests in Europe" (Facebook/KobakhidzeOfficial, March 23). Hungary has repeatedly vetoed the European Union's decision to impose sanctions against the Georgian government for human rights violations during mass protests in Tbilisi and other Georgian cities (Civil Georgia, December 10, 2024; Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, December 16, 2024).
On October 29, 2024, Orban visited Georgia after congratulating the ruling Georgian Dream party for its "overwhelming victory" in the October 26, 2024, parliamentary elections despite widespread concerns about intimidation and coercion of voters. Ministers from 13 EU countries criticized Orban's visit and the "violations of electoral integrity" in Georgia. Soon after Orban's departure, large-scale protests erupted on November 28, 2024, after Kobakhidze announced the suspension of Georgia's EU accession negotiations until 2028 (1tv.ge, November 28, 2024; see EDM, December 6, 10, 2024).
For several years, the ruling Georgian Dream party--founded by billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili--has positioned itself as a defender of Georgian religious and conservative values (see EDM, February 25, September 5, 2024). This shift became particularly noticeable after 2018. During its first term in office after winning the 2012 parliamentary elections, Georgian Dream passed several liberal laws. For example, on May 2, 2014, parliament approved an anti-discrimination law that protected minorities (Institute for War & Peace Reporting; Civil Georgia, May 2, 2014). In contrast, on December 2, 2024, parliament passed a law "On the Protection of Family Values and Minors," which drew sharp criticism from the European Union and the United States for restricting the rights of sexual minorities (Council of Europe, June 25, 2024; see EDM, July 3, 2024; Civil Georgia, September 17, 2024).
Former Georgian State Minister for Reconciliation and Civic Equality Paata Zakareishvili argues that this transformation reflects a political calculation to hold power. In an interview with this author, he asserted, "The Georgian Dream leaders realized that conservative values are very important to a large portion of Georgians" and that the party successfully "exploit[s] these sentiments to retain power." Zakareishvili further asserted that when he worked with Ivanishvili in government, "His values were never conservative; he even seemed liberal to me." Ivanishvili's desire to "create a conservative lobby in the European Union" explains Georgian Dream's close relationship with Orban, given his "great influence within the European conservative family" (Author's interview, March 28).
Opposition leaders call the partnership between Georgian Dream and Orban's Fidesz party an "ideological alliance." Petre Tsiskarishvili, general secretary of United National Movement, Georgia's main opposition party, argued in his March 28 interview with this author that the two parties "are ideologically aligned around the so-called traditional, conservative values," adding that Georgian Dream "also hopes that Orban will help them gain a foothold in Washington D.C. and improve relations with the Trump Administration." He further noted that Orban's importance lies in his ability to "represent and lobby the Georgian regime within the European Union," helping to "prevent impending sanctions and travel bans on Georgian Dream elites" in a similar manner to Russia (Author's interview, March 28).
Hungary's April 12 elections will shape future relations between Tbilisi and Budapest. The alignment between Georgian Dream and Fidesz gives Georgia an ally within the European Union, helping it to deflect pressure from Brussels.
* * *
Giorgi Menabde is a journalist based in Georgia.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/ideological-alliance-between-georgian-dream-and-fidesz-intensifies/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Hudson Institute Issues Commentary to Fox News: America Is Too Dependent on Drugs From China. Worst-Case Scenario Could Be Disastrous
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on April 8, 2026, by Keystone Defense Initiative Director Rebeccah L. Heinrichs and senior fellow Michael Sobolik to Fox News:* * *
America Is Too Dependent on Drugs from China. Worst-Case Scenario Could Be Disastrous
Chinese companies now dominate drug discovery too, projected to account for 35% of new drug approvals by 2040.
*
Policymakers have been aware of U.S. vulnerability to China's supply chain dominance for decades ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 9 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on April 8, 2026, by Keystone Defense Initiative Director Rebeccah L. Heinrichs and senior fellow Michael Sobolik to Fox News: * * * America Is Too Dependent on Drugs from China. Worst-Case Scenario Could Be Disastrous Chinese companies now dominate drug discovery too, projected to account for 35% of new drug approvals by 2040. * Policymakers have been aware of U.S. vulnerability to China's supply chain dominance for decadesand have contemplated the possibility of Beijing weaponizing its control by throttling exports to the United States. Last summer, Chinese President Xi Jinping did. Relying on an adversary's good graces on matters of national health and security invites disaster. But critical minerals are only one weakness. Washington also relies on Beijing for the nation's pharmaceuticals. It should be intolerable.
In 2000, America imported roughly 100,000 metric tons of pharmaceuticals. By 2024, that figure had jumped above 800,000 metric tons. Last year, the United States imported roughly 90% of inputs for prescription drugs. About half of these medicines come from India, but India sources 70% to 80% of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) from China.
America's medical dependency on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) does not end there. Chinese companies are now beginning to outpace U.S. competitors in drug discovery, not merely drug production. Consider this warning from the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology: "In just three years, China's biopharmaceutical industry rose from near irrelevance to dominance."
What does that mean practically? Per the commission's findings: "This overall innovation trend is set to accelerate, with Chinese drugs projected to account for 35%" of new drug approvals by 2040.
Americans are witnessing the offshoring of our medicine supply chains to a foreign adversary that has already exploited its control over critical minerals. The CCP has threatened to do the same with drugs. During the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, Chinese state media wire service Xinhua published commentary that threatened to impose export controls on pharmaceuticals to the United States and thus plunge America into a "sea of coronavirus."
America's health infrastructure is dependent on a country with a history of weak intellectual property enforcement, state-backed chemical exports and adversarial trade behavior. The next pandemic or health crisis could be weaponized purposefully through our own medicine cabinets. The threat is concerning, but the risks are not hypothetical. Beijing's lack of quality health standards has materially harmed Americans over the past three decades.
In 1996, an internal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) memo issued a stark warning: "We literally have no control over bulk drugs that enter the U.S." The next year, Congress took steps to address this threat by requiring foreign pharmaceutical companies to register with the FDA. Ten years later, however, the government had not enforced this requirement. The results were deadly. In 2008, hundreds of Americans were injured or killed by contaminated Heparin, a blood thinner used in dialysis, surgery and care to prevent blood clots.
Again, Congress acted and gave the FDA authorities and funding for foreign inspections by passing the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012. What has often transpired, however, is a cat-and-mouse game with Chinese producers delaying inspections and hiding potentially concerning products, while Beijing delays granting visas for FDA inspectors.
This history underscores the double-crisis of China's dominance over America's pharmaceuticals. On one hand, poor regulation, cost-cutting measures and evasive behavior have endangered, harmed and in some cases killed Americans who rely on life-saving drugs.
On the other hand, the United States does not have alternative suppliers to tap. At present, we are stuck in the unacceptable position of hoping the CCP does not exploit this vulnerability, as they did with critical minerals. In their 2021 book "China Rx," authors Rosemary Gibson and Janardan Prasad Singh underscore this threat: "A poorly made drug could be the difference between life and death for those who take it. With medicine, there is no room for error. And it better be available when we need it." For these reasons, they warn that "worldwide dependence on a single country for life-saving medicines is breathtaking."
Breathtaking, indeed, yet these concerns persist. In January, Illinois Democrat Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi sent letters to multiple Chinese companies over concerns of mislabeled and counterfeit GLP-1 drugs. Shortly thereafter, Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott introduced bipartisan legislation with New York Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand to institute country-of-origin labeling requirements for drugs and APIs. Awareness is growing, but Americans need their governing institutions to act.
Most urgently, President Donald Trump should revisit an executive order from his first administration that required the U.S. government to prioritize domestic pharmaceutical producers for government procurement, with particular attention given to antibiotics. Secondly, the administration should fully enforce the Drug Supply Chain Security Act and ensure real-time digital tracking of pharmaceutical products from point of manufacture to point of sale.
Meanwhile, Congress should pass legislation requiring that all APIs used in sterile injectable drugs be sourced exclusively from FDA-registered suppliers, with mandatory independent testing prior to compounding. Congress should also require the FDA and DHS to permanently blacklist foreign entities caught shipping misbranded APIs and penalize U.S. companies that continue to purchase from these sources.
This should be paired with diplomatic pressure on the Chinese government to crackdown on illegal API exporters. It should also include diplomatic initiatives with allies and partners to help track China's exports of compounders transshipping through other markets to the U.S.
Washington also needs a pharmaceutical foreign dependency strategy focused on reshoring API production and incentivizing domestic manufacturing. This could include tax credits, direct federal contracts and regulatory fast-tracks for companies willing to invest in American API plants. This would not be necessarily aimed at full autonomy, but rather an increased capacity for domestic manufacturing, making us less prone to shocks from foreign sources.
Congress should also increase criminal penalties for domestic distributors and compounders who knowingly use non-compliant APIs, particularly in products labeled for injection. Sanctions should be imposed on PRC entities involved in counterfeit API exports. Patient safety must be treated not just as a medical issue, but as a national defense priority.
Finally, and perhaps most obviously, Congress should implement a blanket ban on the importation of compounders from China within a reasonable timeframe. This should be coupled with increased resources for Customs and Border Protection to adequately inspect de minimis imports from China.
The pharmaceutical market cannot be a regulatory afterthought. The integrity of our drug supply is vulnerable to the whims of strategic rivals. Washington must act now to ensure the integrity and independence of our healthcare system. Our health and sovereignty depend on it.
Read in Fox News (https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/america-dependent-drugs-china-worst-case-scenario-could-disastrous).
* * *
At A Glance:
Rebeccah L. Heinrichs is a senior fellow and director of the Keystone Defense Initiative.
Michael Sobolik is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/supply-chains/america-too-dependent-drugs-china-worst-case-scenario-could-be-disastrous-rebeccah-heinrichs-michael-sobolik
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Critical Questions Q&A: What's Next for Oil Markets After the Ceasefire Agreement?
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following Critical Questions Q&A on April 8, 2026, involving Clayton Seigle, senior fellow in the Energy Security and Climate Change Program and James R. Schlesinger Chair in Energy and Geopolitics:* * *
What's Next for Oil Markets After the Ceasefire Agreement?
The ceasefire announced by President Trump on April 7 implicitly acknowledges Iran's newfound control over Gulf energy flows--a strategic challenge for oil market stability and the interests of Gulf Arab exporting countries. The United States has halted ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following Critical Questions Q&A on April 8, 2026, involving Clayton Seigle, senior fellow in the Energy Security and Climate Change Program and James R. Schlesinger Chair in Energy and Geopolitics: * * * What's Next for Oil Markets After the Ceasefire Agreement? The ceasefire announced by President Trump on April 7 implicitly acknowledges Iran's newfound control over Gulf energy flows--a strategic challenge for oil market stability and the interests of Gulf Arab exporting countries. The United States has haltedthe military campaign it started six weeks ago with Tehran poised to call the shots on oil and gas exports. As was the case prior to the ceasefire, tanker vessels will require Iran's approval to exit the Gulf, which may be conditioned on a new tolling fee arrangement.
Following Trump's announcement, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated: "For a period of two weeks, safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz will be possible via coordination with Iran's Armed Forces and with due consideration of technical limitations."
The first signposts to watch are the extent to which Iran grants tanker vessels permission to pass and whether ship operators are sufficiently confident of safe passage to resume normal activities. With Iran having reportedly re-closed the strait on Wednesday afternoon in response to alleged ceasefire violations by the United States and Israel, ship operators and the oil market writ large are left with more questions than answers.
Q1: What is the scale of Gulf oil export disruptions from which recovery is needed?
A1: According to Petro-Logistics, Gulf crude and condensate exports via Hormuz are down from 16.3 million barrels per day (mb/d) before the war to just 1.2 mb/d during the seven days ending April 6. Another 3.7 mb/d have been redirected by Saudi Arabia to Yanbu on the Red Sea and by the United Arab Emirates to Fujairah in the Gulf of Oman.
With exports essentially halted for about a month, and no empty ships on hand to load new cargoes, Gulf producers were forced to slash production by more than 10 million barrels per day. Export recovery will require empty ships returning to load Gulf oil cargoes and restoration of normal oil output levels from producing countries.
Q2: What is needed to begin the resumption of Gulf oil exports?
A2: Assuming Iranian permission to transit the Strait of Hormuz is broadly granted, and ship operators feel safe enough to resume seaborne movements (critically important assumptions, and by no means assured at time of publication), initial shipping operations will focus on clearing the enormous overhang of oil, totaling 116 million barrels (equal to about one week of prewar exports), that has been stuck on tankers inside the Gulf for the past month. Once those laden tankers have exited the region, empty tankers will be able to enter the Gulf to load new cargoes and restore oil production levels. This sequence assumes the export terminals, and the facilities that supply them with crude oil and refined products, are intact.
Q3: How are oil prices responding to the ceasefire announcement?
A3: In the futures market, prices for international benchmark Brent crude oil had plunged about 13 percent to $95 per barrel by Wednesday morning. Futures prices for the top U.S. crude, called the West Texas Intermediate (WTI), had fallen by about 15 percent to $95 per barrel. Brent and WTI futures remained 30 percent and 40 percent higher, respectively, than their prewar levels.
More importantly, those widely quoted futures prices do not tell the whole story. In the physical oil market, in which crude and refined products like gasoline, diesel, and jet aviation fuel change hands, prices have been much higher--around $140 per barrel for Brent-type crude. The price of jet fuel has surged to $4.88 per gallon, which translates to more than $200 per barrel. Looking forward, it is quite plausible that widely quoted futures prices will fall further while the physical market stays tighter for longer, postponing price relief at the pump and in airfares. We'll address the unusual divergence between physical and "paper" oil markets in a forthcoming report.
Q4: How will the expected Iranian tolling fee affect oil markets?
A4: The unofficial reported price range of the expected new toll, $1-$2 per barrel, will marginally increase prices, but not enough to render Gulf supplies uncompetitive. It's likely (and probably intended by Tehran) that Gulf Arab exporting countries will bear most or all of the added transportation cost as a form of compensation for (in Iran's view) having facilitated the U.S. assault. Tehran could later decide to increase the toll to further pressure Gulf Arab producers, including possibly in future disputes related to basing rights or other elements of their relations with the United States.
Iran's Hormuz tolling leverage could also be applied in the context of future oil supply policy decisions by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Assuming oil sanctions relief is forthcoming, Tehran will want to reclaim market share lost in recent years to competitors. Iran can now use its newfound geopolitical influence to lean on Gulf OPEC nations to "make room" for Iran's barrels to return to pre-sanctions destinations in India, Japan, Taiwan, Turkey, South Korea, Greece, and Italy. This could take the form of limiting Gulf OPEC export volumes or increasing the cost of those barrels via higher tolls--or both.
It's not a foregone conclusion that Gulf Arab exporters will even receive Iran's permission to resume shipments with any toll arrangement. If it does, Tehran may charge those "hostile" nations a higher rate than the toll to be imposed on Iraq, seen by Tehran as an allied government.
* * *
Clayton Seigle is a senior fellow in the Energy Security and Climate Change Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and holds the James R. Schlesinger Chair in Energy and Geopolitics.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/whats-next-oil-markets-after-ceasefire-agreement
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: Where Is the Space Force Budget for Commercial Services?
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on April 8, 2026, by Clayton Swope, deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project and senior fellow in the CSIS Defense and Security Department:* * *
Where Is the Space Force Budget for Commercial Services?
For fiscal year 2027, the administration is requesting $71 billion in baseline and reconciliation funding for the Space Force--a 77 percent increase over FY 2026. Based on the initial budget information, about $1.4 billion of the Space Force budget is clearly earmarked for commercial ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on April 8, 2026, by Clayton Swope, deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project and senior fellow in the CSIS Defense and Security Department: * * * Where Is the Space Force Budget for Commercial Services? For fiscal year 2027, the administration is requesting $71 billion in baseline and reconciliation funding for the Space Force--a 77 percent increase over FY 2026. Based on the initial budget information, about $1.4 billion of the Space Force budget is clearly earmarked for commercialservices, with over $1.3 billion of that amount intended for space launch. While the Pentagon has yet to release its most detailed budget information, which will happen in the coming weeks, there is little sign that the Space Force budget meaningfully boosts funding for purchasing non-launch commercial services. This appears counterintuitive given perennial rhetoric from defense and military leaders on the need to integrate and use commercial space services, but reflects a trend whereby the Pentagon asks for little money for non-launch commercial space services, only to have congressional appropriators add funding to such programs. This pattern, reinforced by the high-level budget information released for FY 2027, signals to industry that the Space Force is only marginally interested in commercial services.
That commercial services, other than launch, receive so little attention in the Space Force top-line budget request, particularly given the record-breaking size of that request, is remarkable. This comes at a time when the White House is prioritizing government use of commercial solutions and emphasizing commercial solutions as part of its strategy to maintain space superiority. The Pentagon has also implemented a commercial-first policy. Space Force officials seem on board, echoing similar sentiments with a "buy what they can and build only what they must" approach. The release of two commercial space strategies in April 2024--the department-wide Commercial Space Integration Strategy and the U.S. Space Force Commercial Space Strategy--appeared to formalize a desire by military leaders to figure out how to better use space services. In addition to these two strategies, the Defense Science Board published a commercial space system report in May 2024 that included recommendations for improving the use and integration of commercial space. In 2025, the Space Force established a working capital fund for buying space services, indicated strong demand for satellite communications services, and made progress with the Commercial Augmentation Space Reserve initiative to use and integrate more services. But how is the Space Force funding these initiatives?
The Space Force has never requested a robust budget for non-launch commercial space initiatives, instead relying on Congress to provide extra funds. Consider the case of commercially acquired space situational awareness, also known as space domain awareness (SDA) data and services. In its 2026 budget request, the Space Force requested $34 million for a program used for commercial SDA data buys. For FY 2026, the Space Force received at least around $738 million for SDA activities. In the FY 2027 budget, that amount would rise to an astronomical $1.6 billion. While the Pentagon has yet to release detailed budget information about funding within its high-level budget account, there are no indications to date that commercial SDA data buys and as-a-service procurements will receive a significant funding boost.
Take, for example, the Tactical Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and Tracking (TacSRT) program, which uses commercial satellite data and analytics providers to provide actionable intelligence to the warfighter. In FY 2024, the Pentagon requested no money for the program, but Congress appropriated $40 million for it anyway, as well as $10 million for other commercial services. Once again, in FY 2025, zero dollars were requested for TacSRT; once again, Congress provided funding. Changing tack, the Pentagon requested $36.6 million in FY 2026 for a budget line that funds non-launch commercial services, including TacSRT. Congress appropriated an additional $131.4 million on top of that amount, with $80 million marked for TacSRT. While we do not yet know the specific number for TacSRT in the 2027 budget, the funding line in which this program resides is only budgeted for $23.7 million. This is even less than was requested in 2026 for the same account, signaling, at best, a marginal and waning interest in commercial services.
It should be noted that, in addition to using commercial services for space launch, the military extensively uses commercial satellite communications. The Space Force projects around $1.2 billion in spending on commercial satellite communications annually. However, funding for commercial satellite communications services--essentially, bandwidth on commercial satellites--comes from the other services and not from the Space Force budget. Space Force manages a working capital fund into which the other service branches transfer money to reimburse it for purchases.
Overall, the budget information released so far for FY 2027 shows no indication of greater Space Force spending on commercial space services. Commercial data buys and as-a-service procurements may be included in other program element budget lines--ones that are not solely designated for commercial solutions. This would actually be an ideal outcome, as it would indicate that commercial services are being integrated and used alongside more traditional government-owned and -operated capabilities. While there are cases where this is indeed happening, such as for weather systems, this is likely an exception and not the norm. It is also possible that there is more commercial spending contained in the classified budget line. While there is no way to publicly know, if the past is any guide, there is little reason to expect greater funds in the classified budget for commercial services--the administration reportedly planned to make cuts in the FY 2026 budget to National Reconnaissance Office initiatives aimed at buying commercial space data.
Why does the Space Force budget so little for commercial services? It is easy to point the finger at traditional defense prime contractors and blame them for perpetuating the status quo. But the main issue comes from the government and a deep-seated reticence to use commercial services for critical space functions, which can be mistaken for either inherently governmental functions or activities closely related to inherently governmental functions. Somewhat paradoxically, the Pentagon already relies entirely on commercial services for space access--it is almost entirely dependent on just one company, SpaceX, to get it into space. And the other service branches, with a history going back to the first Gulf War, have heavily used commercial satellite communications services for their missions. But there are no indications that this outcome--use of commercial services for launch and communications, but nothing else at scale--is the result of intentional deliberation or a comprehensive calculation, assessing factors such as cost, performance, and schedule. Rather, it is the result of recurrent barriers to the adoption of new ideas across many organizations: an attachment to the status quo.
It is time to break that attachment to the way things have been done and look at how things could be done better. Budgeting more money for commercial services--sending a real demand signal to industry--creates beneficial flywheel effects, bringing cutting-edge space capabilities to the warfighter today and shaping future commercial developments to meet the military needs of tomorrow. A continuous cycle of congressional funding additions does not accomplish the same effect because it shows that commercial services are not built into the planning processes of the Space Force. Non-launch commercial space services are merely extras that are not integrated into the broader force structure. Planning and budgeting for commercial space services allows the warfighter to use cutting-edge space capabilities today and allows the Pentagon to shape future developments of commercial services to suit military requirements.
For functions and missions like SDA, TacSRT, space-based environmental monitoring, positioning, navigation, and timing, and space servicing, mobility, and logistics--all areas the Space Force has said it wants to explore buying as commercial services--the military is fortunate to have a cornucopia of U.S. companies, funded by private investment in many cases, interested and willing to develop services to meet the warfighter's needs. But unless the Space Force starts budgeting for these areas, these companies may exit the market because their business models are built around selling services to the military. With the paltry sums to date, even with congressional additions, they are on starvation diets. If the Space Force is truly interested in integrating and using more commercial services, it should act before that happens. It should recognize that it may be the only customer for certain services--and that this is acceptable. It may be too late for the 2027 budget. But there will only be so many more chances before the market deteriorates and investors start to finally realize that the Space Force is not actually interested in budgeting for non-launch commercial services. Let 2027 be the last year of lukewarm interest in commercial space services.
* * *
Clayton Swope is the deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project and a senior fellow in the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/where-space-force-budget-commercial-services
[Category: ThinkTank]
CAP Unveils 'Patients' Bill of Rights' To Lower Health Care Costs and Deliver Immediate Relief
WASHINGTON, April 9 (TNSrep) -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release on April 8, 2026:* * *
CAP Unveils 'Patients' Bill of Rights' To Lower Health Care Costs and Deliver Immediate Relief
Today, the Center for American Progress released a major new plan (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/a-patients-bill-of-rights-to-lower-health-care-costs/) to lower health care costs for American families. CAP's health agenda is focused on delivering immediate relief for Americans by curbing industry abuses that drive up prices and ensuring savings reach consumers through ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 9 (TNSrep) -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release on April 8, 2026: * * * CAP Unveils 'Patients' Bill of Rights' To Lower Health Care Costs and Deliver Immediate Relief Today, the Center for American Progress released a major new plan (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/a-patients-bill-of-rights-to-lower-health-care-costs/) to lower health care costs for American families. CAP's health agenda is focused on delivering immediate relief for Americans by curbing industry abuses that drive up prices and ensuring savings reach consumers throughlower premiums and out-of-pocket costs. This is the latest report in CAP's "Path Forward" (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-path-forward-ideas-worth-fighting-for/) series, offering bold ideas on affordability and an affirmative vision for the future.
CAP's report outlines a "Patients' Bill of Rights" designed to take on the key drivers of high health care costs and deliver near-term savings for patients at a time when families are facing record premiums, rising deductibles, and growing barriers to care.
The report finds that health care costs in the United States are nearly twice as high as in peer countries, driven largely by excessive prices rather than higher utilization. Today, the average family premium for employer coverage is about $27,000 per year, with workers paying nearly $7,000 out of pocket. Over the past five years, employee premium contributions alone have increased by about 23 percent.
Polling from the Center for American Progress and Blue Rose Research shows voters overwhelmingly want policymakers focused on lowering costs now--not years from now. CAP's policies--limiting premium increases, reducing hospital prices, cracking down on price gouging, and reforming prior authorization--rank among the top-performing ideas tested, outperforming 90 percent (or more) of all policies, including those outside of health care.
CAP outlines a clear, actionable agenda to lower costs quickly--building on the success of Medicare drug price negotiation, which has already begun delivering savings--including:
* Limiting excessive premium increases by tying rate hikes to actual medical cost growth and rejecting unjustified increases by strengthening provisions in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This would reduce individual market premiums by about $415 in states with excessive rate hikes and cut family employer premiums by roughly $1,156 in affected states.
* Lowering deductibles by reducing outlier hospital prices in highly concentrated markets, cutting average employer deductibles roughly in half in concentrated markets and lowering employer family premiums by $1,308 per year by 2032.
* Cracking down on insurance company price gouging through stronger limits on profits and administrative costs, returning up to $132 per enrollee annually, or about $6 billion per year, through rebates and lower premiums.
* Banning and replacing prior authorization with evidence-based clinical review to ensure patients get timely care.
"Family budgets are breaking under the weight of high health care costs," said Neera Tanden, president and CEO of the Center for American Progress. "Leaders need to focus on delivering lower costs by taking on special interests in the health care system. This plan does just that, delivering real relief by lowering premiums, lowering deductibles, and removing barriers to care."
"The system is at a breaking point because mega insurance companies and hospital systems are price gouging families," said Topher Spiro, senior fellow for Health Policy at the Center for American Progress and co-author of the report. "This plan directly cracks down on price gouging and stops insurance company bureaucrats from denying care--the immediate relief Americans are crying out for."
While broader structural reforms remain important, they could take years to implement. In the near term, consumers need immediate relief from rising premiums, growing deductibles, and barriers to care. CAP is offering a targeted reform agenda that can work quickly to lower costs, improve care, and restore accountability.
Read the report: "A Patients' Bill of Rights To Lower Health Care Costs" (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/a-patients-bill-of-rights-to-lower-health-care-costs/) by Topher Spiro, Neera Tanden, Natasha Murphy, Neda Ashtari, Kierra B. Jones, and Brian Keyser
For more information on this topic or to speak with an expert, please contact Christian Unkenholz at cunkenholz@americanprogress.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release-cap-unveils-patients-bill-of-rights-to-lower-health-care-costs-and-deliver-immediate-relief/
[Category: ThinkTank]