Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
How USAID cuts are devastating HIV services in Uganda
BRIGHTON, England, Oct. 9 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Institute of Development Studies, an organization that conducts research, learning and teaching that aims to transform the knowledge, action and leadership needed for equitable and sustainable development globally, posted the following news:
* * *
How USAID cuts are devastating HIV services in Uganda
*
The sudden collapse of USAID in 2025 sent shockwaves through Uganda's HIV response and the people hardest hit are those the system was already failing.
Listen to this episode on your favourite podcast provider:
Acast | Spotify | Apple ... Show Full Article BRIGHTON, England, Oct. 9 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Institute of Development Studies, an organization that conducts research, learning and teaching that aims to transform the knowledge, action and leadership needed for equitable and sustainable development globally, posted the following news: * * * How USAID cuts are devastating HIV services in Uganda * The sudden collapse of USAID in 2025 sent shockwaves through Uganda's HIV response and the people hardest hit are those the system was already failing. Listen to this episode on your favourite podcast provider: Acast | Spotify | Apple| YouTube | Soundcloud
When Elon Musk bragged on social media that "USAID had been put through the woodchipper", the consequences for millions of people living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa were immediate - and potentially irreversible.
That is the warning from researchers and community advocates speaking on the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) Between the Lines podcast. With an estimated loss in funding of over US$300 million, and while a new US$2.3 billion five-year health cooperation agreement was signed in December 2025, the abrupt reductions have severely impacted health services.
In the new podcast episode, Chris Stevenson, International Editor at the Independent, Megan Schmidt-Sane, Research Fellow at IDS, and Kyomya Macklean, Executive Director of the Alliance of Women Advocating for Change (AWAC) in Uganda examine what the impacts have been on community-based HIV services and vulnerable communities.
#Listen now
A system built on trust now in freefall, Uganda was long considered a gold standard in global HIV care. Decades of internationally funded work had established free clinics, peer outreach networks, community-based support, and medication access for some of the country's most marginalised populations -sex workers, LGBTQ+ people, and men who inject drugs.
Megan Schmidt-Sane says, "You could walk in, get your counselling for free, medication refills for free. That showed up in the gains Uganda had in reducing new HIV infections and keeping people on treatment. That progress is now in serious jeopardy."
The moment aid cuts were announced, chaos followed. HIV service providers were forced into impossible choices: fund antiretroviral medication keeping people alive, or fund the community outreach work home deliveries, peer support, trust-building that ensures people actually stay on treatment. Most cut the community side. The results have been devastating.
Megan Schmidt-Sane continues, "We've heard reports of young men sharing pills with their colleagues because they're not sure about getting refills. In the worst cases, they're skipping doses, making decisions based on uncertainty. That will have implications we'll see for years to come."
AWAC, which previously served over 11,000 female sex worker clients through its drop-in clinic, now struggles to reach even 15 a month with health services. Kyomya Macklean says, "It's sometimes very painful when I share this. funding really lifted grassroots communities. It gave us hope, courage, inspiration -even when you're living with HIV, you could still set your goals, give birth to children who are safe. Then all of a sudden, that ladder just drops."
#Bilateral deals leave the most vulnerable behind
The Trump administration's shift to government-to-government bilateral agreements has compounded the crisis for marginalised groups. Unlike the previous funding model which could flow directly to community organisations, the new approach explicitly excludes civil society groups working with sex workers, LGBTQ+ communities, and people who use drugs.
For organisations that have spent years building trust with communities that fear and avoid government health facilities due to criminalisation, stigma, and discrimination this is not a bureaucratic inconvenience. It is an existential threat.
In Uganda, sex work is criminalised. LGBTQ+ people face the Anti-Homosexuality Act. Walking into a government clinic carries real legal risk. The community organisations now being defunded were the bridge between these populations and life-saving care. Without them, people are disappearing underground.
#Innovation in the face of abandonment
Rather than wait to be rescued, community organisations are creating their own solutions establishing "community circles," pooling resources, and even planning community-run health facilities in partnership with other affected organisations.
This self-reliance is born of necessity, not choice. But it carries a powerful message to donors, governments, and researchers: community-led innovation works and it deserves investment, not charity.
As Kyomya Macklean powerfully states: "Nothing about us without us." Meaningful, equitable partnerships not top-down aid models are what will sustain HIV responses long-term. Communities must be at the table as partners, not recipients.
#About the Between the Lines podcast
This podcast series explores ground-breaking ideas in development for positive social and environmental change. Each month we feature an interview with an expert in international development who will talk about their latest research and ideas.
Episodes content could feature authors of new books, IDS research or interviews with special guest stars.
The discussions give an insight on the themes covered, exploring the challenges and discoveries, and why the issues matter for progressive and sustainable development globally.
Send your comments and episode suggestions to betweenthelines@ids.ac.uk
***
Original text here: https://www.ids.ac.uk/news/how-usaid-cuts-are-devastating-hiv-services-in-uganda/
* * *
How USAID cuts are devastating HIV services in Uganda
*
The sudden collapse of USAID in 2025 sent shockwaves through Uganda's HIV response and the people hardest hit are those the system was already failing.
Listen to this episode on your favourite podcast provider:
Acast | Spotify | Apple ... Show Full Article BRIGHTON, England, Oct. 9 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Institute of Development Studies, an organization that conducts research, learning and teaching that aims to transform the knowledge, action and leadership needed for equitable and sustainable development globally, posted the following news: * * * How USAID cuts are devastating HIV services in Uganda * The sudden collapse of USAID in 2025 sent shockwaves through Uganda's HIV response and the people hardest hit are those the system was already failing. Listen to this episode on your favourite podcast provider: Acast | Spotify | Apple| YouTube | Soundcloud
When Elon Musk bragged on social media that "USAID had been put through the woodchipper", the consequences for millions of people living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa were immediate - and potentially irreversible.
That is the warning from researchers and community advocates speaking on the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) Between the Lines podcast. With an estimated loss in funding of over US$300 million, and while a new US$2.3 billion five-year health cooperation agreement was signed in December 2025, the abrupt reductions have severely impacted health services.
In the new podcast episode, Chris Stevenson, International Editor at the Independent, Megan Schmidt-Sane, Research Fellow at IDS, and Kyomya Macklean, Executive Director of the Alliance of Women Advocating for Change (AWAC) in Uganda examine what the impacts have been on community-based HIV services and vulnerable communities.
#Listen now
A system built on trust now in freefall, Uganda was long considered a gold standard in global HIV care. Decades of internationally funded work had established free clinics, peer outreach networks, community-based support, and medication access for some of the country's most marginalised populations -sex workers, LGBTQ+ people, and men who inject drugs.
Megan Schmidt-Sane says, "You could walk in, get your counselling for free, medication refills for free. That showed up in the gains Uganda had in reducing new HIV infections and keeping people on treatment. That progress is now in serious jeopardy."
The moment aid cuts were announced, chaos followed. HIV service providers were forced into impossible choices: fund antiretroviral medication keeping people alive, or fund the community outreach work home deliveries, peer support, trust-building that ensures people actually stay on treatment. Most cut the community side. The results have been devastating.
Megan Schmidt-Sane continues, "We've heard reports of young men sharing pills with their colleagues because they're not sure about getting refills. In the worst cases, they're skipping doses, making decisions based on uncertainty. That will have implications we'll see for years to come."
AWAC, which previously served over 11,000 female sex worker clients through its drop-in clinic, now struggles to reach even 15 a month with health services. Kyomya Macklean says, "It's sometimes very painful when I share this. funding really lifted grassroots communities. It gave us hope, courage, inspiration -even when you're living with HIV, you could still set your goals, give birth to children who are safe. Then all of a sudden, that ladder just drops."
#Bilateral deals leave the most vulnerable behind
The Trump administration's shift to government-to-government bilateral agreements has compounded the crisis for marginalised groups. Unlike the previous funding model which could flow directly to community organisations, the new approach explicitly excludes civil society groups working with sex workers, LGBTQ+ communities, and people who use drugs.
For organisations that have spent years building trust with communities that fear and avoid government health facilities due to criminalisation, stigma, and discrimination this is not a bureaucratic inconvenience. It is an existential threat.
In Uganda, sex work is criminalised. LGBTQ+ people face the Anti-Homosexuality Act. Walking into a government clinic carries real legal risk. The community organisations now being defunded were the bridge between these populations and life-saving care. Without them, people are disappearing underground.
#Innovation in the face of abandonment
Rather than wait to be rescued, community organisations are creating their own solutions establishing "community circles," pooling resources, and even planning community-run health facilities in partnership with other affected organisations.
This self-reliance is born of necessity, not choice. But it carries a powerful message to donors, governments, and researchers: community-led innovation works and it deserves investment, not charity.
As Kyomya Macklean powerfully states: "Nothing about us without us." Meaningful, equitable partnerships not top-down aid models are what will sustain HIV responses long-term. Communities must be at the table as partners, not recipients.
#About the Between the Lines podcast
This podcast series explores ground-breaking ideas in development for positive social and environmental change. Each month we feature an interview with an expert in international development who will talk about their latest research and ideas.
Episodes content could feature authors of new books, IDS research or interviews with special guest stars.
The discussions give an insight on the themes covered, exploring the challenges and discoveries, and why the issues matter for progressive and sustainable development globally.
Send your comments and episode suggestions to betweenthelines@ids.ac.uk
***
Original text here: https://www.ids.ac.uk/news/how-usaid-cuts-are-devastating-hiv-services-in-uganda/
Manhattan Institute Issues Commentary to Claremont Review of Books Entitled 'Con Law Man'
NEW YORK, Oct. 8 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary:
* * *
Con Law Man
By Ilya Shapiro
Claremont Review of Books
October 7th, 2026
A dissent, Antonin Scalia once said, "is never a winner." That's a revealing line, not because Scalia disliked dissenting--no justice in modern memory did more to make dissent an art form--but because it reminds us how much of his Supreme Court career consisted of losing beautifully, usefully, and, in the end, not quite permanently.
James Rosen's Scalia: Supreme Court Years, 1986-2001, the second installment of a projected ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Oct. 8 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary: * * * Con Law Man By Ilya Shapiro Claremont Review of Books October 7th, 2026 A dissent, Antonin Scalia once said, "is never a winner." That's a revealing line, not because Scalia disliked dissenting--no justice in modern memory did more to make dissent an art form--but because it reminds us how much of his Supreme Court career consisted of losing beautifully, usefully, and, in the end, not quite permanently. James Rosen's Scalia: Supreme Court Years, 1986-2001, the second installment of a projectedthree-volume biography, is thus largely not the story of Scalia triumphant but of Scalia frustrated: by colleagues who wouldn't argue, conservatives who wouldn't conserve, friends who wouldn't follow, reporters who wouldn't understand, and precedents that wouldn't die.
The first volume--which I also reviewed in these pages ("Nino the Great," Fall 2023)--carried Nino from Queens to the Marble Temple.
Volume two shows what happened when he got inside and discovered that the place was not, in fact, a seminar room.
Continue reading the entire piece here at Claremont Review of Books (https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/con-law-man/?1=1&)
* * *
Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow and director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal.
* * *
Original text here: https://manhattan.institute/article/con-law-man
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Con Law Man
By Ilya Shapiro
Claremont Review of Books
October 7th, 2026
A dissent, Antonin Scalia once said, "is never a winner." That's a revealing line, not because Scalia disliked dissenting--no justice in modern memory did more to make dissent an art form--but because it reminds us how much of his Supreme Court career consisted of losing beautifully, usefully, and, in the end, not quite permanently.
James Rosen's Scalia: Supreme Court Years, 1986-2001, the second installment of a projected ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Oct. 8 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary: * * * Con Law Man By Ilya Shapiro Claremont Review of Books October 7th, 2026 A dissent, Antonin Scalia once said, "is never a winner." That's a revealing line, not because Scalia disliked dissenting--no justice in modern memory did more to make dissent an art form--but because it reminds us how much of his Supreme Court career consisted of losing beautifully, usefully, and, in the end, not quite permanently. James Rosen's Scalia: Supreme Court Years, 1986-2001, the second installment of a projectedthree-volume biography, is thus largely not the story of Scalia triumphant but of Scalia frustrated: by colleagues who wouldn't argue, conservatives who wouldn't conserve, friends who wouldn't follow, reporters who wouldn't understand, and precedents that wouldn't die.
The first volume--which I also reviewed in these pages ("Nino the Great," Fall 2023)--carried Nino from Queens to the Marble Temple.
Volume two shows what happened when he got inside and discovered that the place was not, in fact, a seminar room.
Continue reading the entire piece here at Claremont Review of Books (https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/con-law-man/?1=1&)
* * *
Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow and director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal.
* * *
Original text here: https://manhattan.institute/article/con-law-man
[Category: ThinkTank]
Jamestown Foundation Issues Commentary: Russia's Invasion Spurs PLA Casualty Evacuation Developments
WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on Oct. 7, 2026, in the foundation's China Brief Notes:
* * *
Russia's Invasion Spurs PLA Casualty Evacuation Developments
Joaquin Camarena
Executive Summary:
* The "life-saving chain" developed by the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Joint Logistics Support Force (JLSF) to evacuate and treat casualties is part of the wider lessons it gained from observing the ongoing Russian war in Ukraine.
* Drones and other unmanned platforms provide the JLSF units with an increased capacity to evacuate wounded personnel to field ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on Oct. 7, 2026, in the foundation's China Brief Notes: * * * Russia's Invasion Spurs PLA Casualty Evacuation Developments Joaquin Camarena Executive Summary: * The "life-saving chain" developed by the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Joint Logistics Support Force (JLSF) to evacuate and treat casualties is part of the wider lessons it gained from observing the ongoing Russian war in Ukraine. * Drones and other unmanned platforms provide the JLSF units with an increased capacity to evacuate wounded personnel to fieldhospitals and other medical sites for treatment.
* The use of intelligent equipment such as electronic casualty tags and telemedicine surgery capabilities enhances the JLSF's ability to effectively treat wounded personnel.
* The JLSF's live-saving chain would likely face some limitations, such as developing an overreliance on unmanned platforms that can be jammed, and which emit substantial electromagnetic signatures that can assist targeting.
-
In mid-September, Chinese news outlets celebrated the 10th anniversary of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Joint Logistics Support Force's (JLSF) establishment. State media highlighted how the JLSF has established an integrated joint support capability over the last ten years focused on logistics, medical support, and transportation (CCTV, September 13). It has also expanded the scope of its logistical operations, shown by various exercises that subordinate units, such as the Shenyang Joint Logistics Support Center (JLSC), conducted using drones and other intelligent equipment (CCTV, September 13).
The JLSF's use of drones and intelligent equipment to transport and treat injured soldiers is part of a "life-saving chain" (CCTV, September 13). The PLA has developed this evacuation process for transport and care at medical facilities as part of wider lessons it gained from observing Russia's war in Ukraine.
Life-Saving Chain Employs Unmanned, Intelligent Equipment
The JLSF's life-saving chain deploys a transportation capability to evacuate wounded soldiers from the battlefield and move them to medical facilities for treatment. The JLSF developed these tactics and procedures to retrieve and treat casualties by leveraging various drones and intelligent equipment, which enhances the effectiveness of evacuations (CCTV, September 13; China Brief, September 15).
Heavy use of unmanned platforms in the chain is also a response to the increased presence of loitering munitions, precision guided munitions, first-person view (FPV) drones, and sensors that now exist on the battlefield. Drones and sensors introduce new risks for medical and support personnel when completing missions behind the frontlines. The PLA views the use of drones to evacuate wounded soldiers as a solution to this obstacle. Tracked and wheeled unmanned ground vehicles (UGV) would have the ability to transport casualties from the frontlines to medical sites located in the rear; robot wolves and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) would conduct searches for injured personnel and deliver medical supplies on the battlefield as they wait for evacuation (Xinhua, September 12).
Drones would also conduct resupply missions to deliver medical supplies to medics stationed with frontline units. These auxiliary missions would increase soldiers' chances of survival as they wait for UGVs and unmanned helicopters to bring them to aid stations and other frontline medical facilities (CCTV, September 13). Drones would also be used as supplementary transport to move casualties for follow-on treatment at medical sites with more substantial resources.
Casualty tracking and remote treatment are the successive stages of the JLSF's life-saving chain. The chain uses intelligent equipment such as "wearable smart monitoring systems", which would allow medical staff to rapidly examine a soldier's vital signs during the triage and treatment processes (CCTV, September 13). It also used improved "dynamic electronic casualty tags" to provide enhanced care for wounded troops (CCTV, September 13). These tags would enable medics to input personal data, injuries, treatments, and other information about casualties, likely using an improved interface compared to the second-generation system. They would also prevent doctors and nurses from administering redundant treatments or tests. Past iterations allowed medical staff to rapidly access the medical history of injured personnel (PLA Daily, June 9, 2009). The system can likely sync with existing electronic casualty tags to continuously upload medical information.
Medical staff would also leverage the PLA's "military-wide telemedicine information network" built upon "5G-plus dedicated long-range Internet line communications technology" (5G) to provide enhanced medical care by remotely conducting surgeries and other procedures at field hospitals and frontlines (The Paper, September 11; CCTV, September 13).
Conclusion
The life-saving chain enhances JLSF evacuation capabilities by providing the branch with the ability to move casualties from the frontlines to receive treatment at field hospitals. Its employment of unmanned platforms and intelligent equipment in the evacuation process enables the PLA to increase the survivability of its troops by reducing the threat posed by FPV drones, loitering munitions, and sensors. Drones would also increase the survivability of troops by providing them with additional medical supplies as they wait for UGVs and unmanned platforms to evacuate them from the battlefield.
Intelligent equipment, such as the smart monitoring systems and electronic casualty tags, would complement drone evacuations by enabling medical personnel to effectively continue treating the wounded soldiers. The chain would be employed at the tactical level by individual brigades to enable their medical units to play a role in the wider process.
The life-saving chain would likely have limitations that decrease its ability to evacuate and care for casualties from the frontlines. One limitation is the potential for drones to be jammed or disabled using electronic warfare techniques. This vulnerability would prevent targeted drones from conducting evacuation operations. Another is that the heavy electromagnetic signatures that drones and intelligent equipment emit could be used by enemy forces to locate field hospitals and other medical sites. This information would be used to locate frontline positions and other viable military sites for targeting by artillery, long-range missiles, and other stand-off weapons.
* * *
Joaquin Camarena is a former United States Marine Corps intelligence analyst who runs Sino Talk, an entity devoted to monitoring the PLA's developing capabilities. He is also an affiliate at the China Landpower Studies Center of the US Army War College's Strategic Research and Assessment Department.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/russias-invasion-spurs-pla-casualty-evacuation-developments/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Russia's Invasion Spurs PLA Casualty Evacuation Developments
Joaquin Camarena
Executive Summary:
* The "life-saving chain" developed by the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Joint Logistics Support Force (JLSF) to evacuate and treat casualties is part of the wider lessons it gained from observing the ongoing Russian war in Ukraine.
* Drones and other unmanned platforms provide the JLSF units with an increased capacity to evacuate wounded personnel to field ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on Oct. 7, 2026, in the foundation's China Brief Notes: * * * Russia's Invasion Spurs PLA Casualty Evacuation Developments Joaquin Camarena Executive Summary: * The "life-saving chain" developed by the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Joint Logistics Support Force (JLSF) to evacuate and treat casualties is part of the wider lessons it gained from observing the ongoing Russian war in Ukraine. * Drones and other unmanned platforms provide the JLSF units with an increased capacity to evacuate wounded personnel to fieldhospitals and other medical sites for treatment.
* The use of intelligent equipment such as electronic casualty tags and telemedicine surgery capabilities enhances the JLSF's ability to effectively treat wounded personnel.
* The JLSF's live-saving chain would likely face some limitations, such as developing an overreliance on unmanned platforms that can be jammed, and which emit substantial electromagnetic signatures that can assist targeting.
-
In mid-September, Chinese news outlets celebrated the 10th anniversary of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Joint Logistics Support Force's (JLSF) establishment. State media highlighted how the JLSF has established an integrated joint support capability over the last ten years focused on logistics, medical support, and transportation (CCTV, September 13). It has also expanded the scope of its logistical operations, shown by various exercises that subordinate units, such as the Shenyang Joint Logistics Support Center (JLSC), conducted using drones and other intelligent equipment (CCTV, September 13).
The JLSF's use of drones and intelligent equipment to transport and treat injured soldiers is part of a "life-saving chain" (CCTV, September 13). The PLA has developed this evacuation process for transport and care at medical facilities as part of wider lessons it gained from observing Russia's war in Ukraine.
Life-Saving Chain Employs Unmanned, Intelligent Equipment
The JLSF's life-saving chain deploys a transportation capability to evacuate wounded soldiers from the battlefield and move them to medical facilities for treatment. The JLSF developed these tactics and procedures to retrieve and treat casualties by leveraging various drones and intelligent equipment, which enhances the effectiveness of evacuations (CCTV, September 13; China Brief, September 15).
Heavy use of unmanned platforms in the chain is also a response to the increased presence of loitering munitions, precision guided munitions, first-person view (FPV) drones, and sensors that now exist on the battlefield. Drones and sensors introduce new risks for medical and support personnel when completing missions behind the frontlines. The PLA views the use of drones to evacuate wounded soldiers as a solution to this obstacle. Tracked and wheeled unmanned ground vehicles (UGV) would have the ability to transport casualties from the frontlines to medical sites located in the rear; robot wolves and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) would conduct searches for injured personnel and deliver medical supplies on the battlefield as they wait for evacuation (Xinhua, September 12).
Drones would also conduct resupply missions to deliver medical supplies to medics stationed with frontline units. These auxiliary missions would increase soldiers' chances of survival as they wait for UGVs and unmanned helicopters to bring them to aid stations and other frontline medical facilities (CCTV, September 13). Drones would also be used as supplementary transport to move casualties for follow-on treatment at medical sites with more substantial resources.
Casualty tracking and remote treatment are the successive stages of the JLSF's life-saving chain. The chain uses intelligent equipment such as "wearable smart monitoring systems", which would allow medical staff to rapidly examine a soldier's vital signs during the triage and treatment processes (CCTV, September 13). It also used improved "dynamic electronic casualty tags" to provide enhanced care for wounded troops (CCTV, September 13). These tags would enable medics to input personal data, injuries, treatments, and other information about casualties, likely using an improved interface compared to the second-generation system. They would also prevent doctors and nurses from administering redundant treatments or tests. Past iterations allowed medical staff to rapidly access the medical history of injured personnel (PLA Daily, June 9, 2009). The system can likely sync with existing electronic casualty tags to continuously upload medical information.
Medical staff would also leverage the PLA's "military-wide telemedicine information network" built upon "5G-plus dedicated long-range Internet line communications technology" (5G) to provide enhanced medical care by remotely conducting surgeries and other procedures at field hospitals and frontlines (The Paper, September 11; CCTV, September 13).
Conclusion
The life-saving chain enhances JLSF evacuation capabilities by providing the branch with the ability to move casualties from the frontlines to receive treatment at field hospitals. Its employment of unmanned platforms and intelligent equipment in the evacuation process enables the PLA to increase the survivability of its troops by reducing the threat posed by FPV drones, loitering munitions, and sensors. Drones would also increase the survivability of troops by providing them with additional medical supplies as they wait for UGVs and unmanned platforms to evacuate them from the battlefield.
Intelligent equipment, such as the smart monitoring systems and electronic casualty tags, would complement drone evacuations by enabling medical personnel to effectively continue treating the wounded soldiers. The chain would be employed at the tactical level by individual brigades to enable their medical units to play a role in the wider process.
The life-saving chain would likely have limitations that decrease its ability to evacuate and care for casualties from the frontlines. One limitation is the potential for drones to be jammed or disabled using electronic warfare techniques. This vulnerability would prevent targeted drones from conducting evacuation operations. Another is that the heavy electromagnetic signatures that drones and intelligent equipment emit could be used by enemy forces to locate field hospitals and other medical sites. This information would be used to locate frontline positions and other viable military sites for targeting by artillery, long-range missiles, and other stand-off weapons.
* * *
Joaquin Camarena is a former United States Marine Corps intelligence analyst who runs Sino Talk, an entity devoted to monitoring the PLA's developing capabilities. He is also an affiliate at the China Landpower Studies Center of the US Army War College's Strategic Research and Assessment Department.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/russias-invasion-spurs-pla-casualty-evacuation-developments/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Jamestown Foundation Issues Commentary: Russia and Pakistan Sign Deal on Rail Connectivity
WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on Oct. 7, 2026, in the foundation's Eurasia Daily Monitor:
* * *
Russia and Pakistan Sign Deal on Rail Connectivity
Syed Fazl-e-Haider
Executive Summary:
* Pakistan and Russia signed a freight-forwarding contract on August 31 to establish a framework for international freight transportation and pursue a pilot container train linking Pakistan with Russia, Central Asia, and possibly Belarus.
* Earlier efforts to launch the connection have been repeatedly delayed, including a planned June 2025 pilot that was cancelled ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on Oct. 7, 2026, in the foundation's Eurasia Daily Monitor: * * * Russia and Pakistan Sign Deal on Rail Connectivity Syed Fazl-e-Haider Executive Summary: * Pakistan and Russia signed a freight-forwarding contract on August 31 to establish a framework for international freight transportation and pursue a pilot container train linking Pakistan with Russia, Central Asia, and possibly Belarus. * Earlier efforts to launch the connection have been repeatedly delayed, including a planned June 2025 pilot that was cancelledamid conflict in Iran. Each proposed route would transit Iran, with options discussed through Central Asia or Azerbaijan.
* The project faces significant infrastructure and security challenges, including Iran's incomplete rail links, differing railway standards, and instability along proposed routes. If completed, it could expand Russia's access to South Asia and Pakistani ports.
-
On August 31, the Pakistani government announced that Pakistan Railways and Russian Railways Logistics (RZD Logistics) signed a freight forwarding contract establishing a framework for cooperation in international freight transportation. Under the deal, both countries will work toward launching a pilot container freight train route connecting Pakistan with Russia and Central Asia (Express Tribune, September 1). The route, which is planned to run through Iran, was postponed several times in the past year and a half because of geopolitical tensions in the region. On August 10, Russian Ambassador to Pakistan Albert P. Khorev wrote on X:
Together with our Pakistani partners, we are working on launching the first freight railway route along the Moscow-Faisalabad and Moscow-Karachi corridors in both directions. The possibility of involving the Belarusian side in the project is also being considered. At present, the parties are finalizing the contract for the provision of services and identifying companies in the countries along the proposed route that are interested in transporting their goods (X/@RusEmbPakistan, August 10).
A rail link between Russia and Pakistan could strengthen bilateral relations. For Russia, the project would secure faster access to Pakistani ports, the Persian Gulf, and the Indian Ocean. For Pakistan, it would establish a connection with industrial hubs across Central Asia and Russia, unlocking trade opportunities (Russia's Pivot to Asia, December 7, 2025). The landlocked Central Asian countries could benefit from the proposed integration by securing access to warm-water ports in Pakistan (Russia's Pivot to Asia, December 7, 2025).
The planned route bypasses Afghanistan and traverses the eastern branch of the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), passing through Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Iran. The 7,200-kilometer (4,474-mile) INSTC is a multimodal corridor connecting Russia and India through Iran, with branches extending through Central Asia. The new planned freight train connection between Russia and Pakistan indicates a strategic choice to reduce reliance on traditional trade routes (Russian Council, February 6, 2025). The 8,000-kilometer (4,971-mile) route between Russia and Pakistan is expected to take 20-25 days (News Central Asia, June 12, 2025).
The proposed rail project marks a significant development in relations between Russia and Pakistan. In May 1948, Moscow and Islamabad established diplomatic ties. The relationship remained tense during the Cold War, but warmed following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s because of evolving geopolitical realities and shared strategic interests (Business Recorder, August 11). In July 2025, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexei Overchuk described Pakistan as an "important partner" in the region's economic and energy development during a meeting with a Pakistani delegation in Moscow (Arab News.Pk, July 10, 2025)
In December 2024, the Russian-Pakistani intergovernmental commission on trade and economic cooperation first decided to include Pakistan in an extension of the INSTC. The route discussed at the time would run through Azerbaijan and Iran, rather than the eastern INSTC branch through Central Asia, as more recently discussed (Rail Freight, December 6, 2024; Russia's Pivot to Asia, February 24, 2025). The first freight train service for a pilot of this route was scheduled to begin in March 2025 (Russia's Pivot to Asia, February 24, 2025). The trial was subsequently postponed, including a planned June 2025 departure that was cancelled because of armed conflict in Iran, and the pilot has yet to operate. In March 2025, Overchuk met with Pakistani Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb and said, "We are looking forward to the project, the first train to travel from Russia to Pakistan ... Our countries have never had bilateral rail service before, but we have reached an agreement and will start the trial run" (Rail Freight, March 28, 2025).
The route proposed in 2024 via Azerbaijan and Iran would require use of the incomplete Rasht-Astara rail link. Construction has faced delays related to land acquisition, financing, contractual arrangements, and the Iran conflict. The more recently proposed route is also limited by its Iran section. In early August, Pakistani Ambassador to Russia Faisal Niaz Tirmizi said, "The only obstacle on this path is that the route must transit through Iran, and this section has not yet been launched. We are working closely on this issue and continue to strive to make the Minsk-Karachi cargo corridor operational" (Izvestiya, August 6).
The Russia-Pakistan rail project plans to leverage the INSTC to reduce transit times, increase trade volume, and lower transportation costs. The rail link with Pakistan will strengthen Moscow's role in Eurasian trade and deepen its engagement with South Asia (Russian Council, February 6, 2025). The establishment of a railway connection between Russia and Pakistan is facing many challenges. The primary challenge is the security of the route across volatile regions. Another challenge is building new rail infrastructure, modernizing the existing railway, and harmonizing railway infrastructure standards, which vary in the involved countries. Overcoming these logistical challenges will require ongoing investment and cooperation among the stakeholder countries.
* * *
Syed Fazl-e-Haider is a contributing analyst at the South Asia desk of Wikistrat. He is a freelance columnist and the author of several books, including the Economic Development of Balochistan (2004).
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/russia-and-pakistan-sign-deal-on-rail-connectivity/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Russia and Pakistan Sign Deal on Rail Connectivity
Syed Fazl-e-Haider
Executive Summary:
* Pakistan and Russia signed a freight-forwarding contract on August 31 to establish a framework for international freight transportation and pursue a pilot container train linking Pakistan with Russia, Central Asia, and possibly Belarus.
* Earlier efforts to launch the connection have been repeatedly delayed, including a planned June 2025 pilot that was cancelled ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on Oct. 7, 2026, in the foundation's Eurasia Daily Monitor: * * * Russia and Pakistan Sign Deal on Rail Connectivity Syed Fazl-e-Haider Executive Summary: * Pakistan and Russia signed a freight-forwarding contract on August 31 to establish a framework for international freight transportation and pursue a pilot container train linking Pakistan with Russia, Central Asia, and possibly Belarus. * Earlier efforts to launch the connection have been repeatedly delayed, including a planned June 2025 pilot that was cancelledamid conflict in Iran. Each proposed route would transit Iran, with options discussed through Central Asia or Azerbaijan.
* The project faces significant infrastructure and security challenges, including Iran's incomplete rail links, differing railway standards, and instability along proposed routes. If completed, it could expand Russia's access to South Asia and Pakistani ports.
-
On August 31, the Pakistani government announced that Pakistan Railways and Russian Railways Logistics (RZD Logistics) signed a freight forwarding contract establishing a framework for cooperation in international freight transportation. Under the deal, both countries will work toward launching a pilot container freight train route connecting Pakistan with Russia and Central Asia (Express Tribune, September 1). The route, which is planned to run through Iran, was postponed several times in the past year and a half because of geopolitical tensions in the region. On August 10, Russian Ambassador to Pakistan Albert P. Khorev wrote on X:
Together with our Pakistani partners, we are working on launching the first freight railway route along the Moscow-Faisalabad and Moscow-Karachi corridors in both directions. The possibility of involving the Belarusian side in the project is also being considered. At present, the parties are finalizing the contract for the provision of services and identifying companies in the countries along the proposed route that are interested in transporting their goods (X/@RusEmbPakistan, August 10).
A rail link between Russia and Pakistan could strengthen bilateral relations. For Russia, the project would secure faster access to Pakistani ports, the Persian Gulf, and the Indian Ocean. For Pakistan, it would establish a connection with industrial hubs across Central Asia and Russia, unlocking trade opportunities (Russia's Pivot to Asia, December 7, 2025). The landlocked Central Asian countries could benefit from the proposed integration by securing access to warm-water ports in Pakistan (Russia's Pivot to Asia, December 7, 2025).
The planned route bypasses Afghanistan and traverses the eastern branch of the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), passing through Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Iran. The 7,200-kilometer (4,474-mile) INSTC is a multimodal corridor connecting Russia and India through Iran, with branches extending through Central Asia. The new planned freight train connection between Russia and Pakistan indicates a strategic choice to reduce reliance on traditional trade routes (Russian Council, February 6, 2025). The 8,000-kilometer (4,971-mile) route between Russia and Pakistan is expected to take 20-25 days (News Central Asia, June 12, 2025).
The proposed rail project marks a significant development in relations between Russia and Pakistan. In May 1948, Moscow and Islamabad established diplomatic ties. The relationship remained tense during the Cold War, but warmed following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s because of evolving geopolitical realities and shared strategic interests (Business Recorder, August 11). In July 2025, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexei Overchuk described Pakistan as an "important partner" in the region's economic and energy development during a meeting with a Pakistani delegation in Moscow (Arab News.Pk, July 10, 2025)
In December 2024, the Russian-Pakistani intergovernmental commission on trade and economic cooperation first decided to include Pakistan in an extension of the INSTC. The route discussed at the time would run through Azerbaijan and Iran, rather than the eastern INSTC branch through Central Asia, as more recently discussed (Rail Freight, December 6, 2024; Russia's Pivot to Asia, February 24, 2025). The first freight train service for a pilot of this route was scheduled to begin in March 2025 (Russia's Pivot to Asia, February 24, 2025). The trial was subsequently postponed, including a planned June 2025 departure that was cancelled because of armed conflict in Iran, and the pilot has yet to operate. In March 2025, Overchuk met with Pakistani Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb and said, "We are looking forward to the project, the first train to travel from Russia to Pakistan ... Our countries have never had bilateral rail service before, but we have reached an agreement and will start the trial run" (Rail Freight, March 28, 2025).
The route proposed in 2024 via Azerbaijan and Iran would require use of the incomplete Rasht-Astara rail link. Construction has faced delays related to land acquisition, financing, contractual arrangements, and the Iran conflict. The more recently proposed route is also limited by its Iran section. In early August, Pakistani Ambassador to Russia Faisal Niaz Tirmizi said, "The only obstacle on this path is that the route must transit through Iran, and this section has not yet been launched. We are working closely on this issue and continue to strive to make the Minsk-Karachi cargo corridor operational" (Izvestiya, August 6).
The Russia-Pakistan rail project plans to leverage the INSTC to reduce transit times, increase trade volume, and lower transportation costs. The rail link with Pakistan will strengthen Moscow's role in Eurasian trade and deepen its engagement with South Asia (Russian Council, February 6, 2025). The establishment of a railway connection between Russia and Pakistan is facing many challenges. The primary challenge is the security of the route across volatile regions. Another challenge is building new rail infrastructure, modernizing the existing railway, and harmonizing railway infrastructure standards, which vary in the involved countries. Overcoming these logistical challenges will require ongoing investment and cooperation among the stakeholder countries.
* * *
Syed Fazl-e-Haider is a contributing analyst at the South Asia desk of Wikistrat. He is a freelance columnist and the author of several books, including the Economic Development of Balochistan (2004).
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/russia-and-pakistan-sign-deal-on-rail-connectivity/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center for American Progress: Rollback of Methane Protections Harms Public, Helps Polluters
WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release:
* * *
Oct 7, 2026
Rollback of Methane Protections Harms Public, Helps Polluters
Washington, D.C. -- Today, Environmental Protection Agency Administer Lee Zeldin announced plans to dramatically weaken federal standards for methane leaks from oil and gas operations. In response, Trevor Higgins, senior vice president for Energy and Environment at the Center for American Progress, issued the following statement:
During a time of record oil and gas profits, the Trump administration is giving those companies ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release: * * * Oct 7, 2026 Rollback of Methane Protections Harms Public, Helps Polluters Washington, D.C. -- Today, Environmental Protection Agency Administer Lee Zeldin announced plans to dramatically weaken federal standards for methane leaks from oil and gas operations. In response, Trevor Higgins, senior vice president for Energy and Environment at the Center for American Progress, issued the following statement: During a time of record oil and gas profits, the Trump administration is giving those companiesyet another pass on their duties to protect the public.
Monitoring for pollutant leaks and eliminating the routine waste of gas through flaring should be the bare minimum owed to the American people.
But the Trump administration is going out of its way to let fossil fuel corporations avoid even that basic responsibility.
For more information, or to speak with an expert, please contact Sam Hananel at shananel@americanprogress.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanprogress.org/press/statement-rollback-of-methane-protections-harms-public-helps-polluters/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Oct 7, 2026
Rollback of Methane Protections Harms Public, Helps Polluters
Washington, D.C. -- Today, Environmental Protection Agency Administer Lee Zeldin announced plans to dramatically weaken federal standards for methane leaks from oil and gas operations. In response, Trevor Higgins, senior vice president for Energy and Environment at the Center for American Progress, issued the following statement:
During a time of record oil and gas profits, the Trump administration is giving those companies ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release: * * * Oct 7, 2026 Rollback of Methane Protections Harms Public, Helps Polluters Washington, D.C. -- Today, Environmental Protection Agency Administer Lee Zeldin announced plans to dramatically weaken federal standards for methane leaks from oil and gas operations. In response, Trevor Higgins, senior vice president for Energy and Environment at the Center for American Progress, issued the following statement: During a time of record oil and gas profits, the Trump administration is giving those companiesyet another pass on their duties to protect the public.
Monitoring for pollutant leaks and eliminating the routine waste of gas through flaring should be the bare minimum owed to the American people.
But the Trump administration is going out of its way to let fossil fuel corporations avoid even that basic responsibility.
For more information, or to speak with an expert, please contact Sam Hananel at shananel@americanprogress.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanprogress.org/press/statement-rollback-of-methane-protections-harms-public-helps-polluters/
[Category: ThinkTank]
American Action Forum Issues Insight: Trump Administration's Regulatory Budget in FY 2026 and Beyond
WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 -- The American Action Forum issued the following insight:
* * *
October 7, 2026
The Trump Administration's Regulatory Budget in FY 2026 and Beyond
Dan Goldbeck
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In fiscal year 2026, federal agencies published approximately $1.5 trillion in self-reported regulatory cost reductions under the Trump Administration's updated regulatory budget program.
While a vast majority of this sum comes from just three rules, agency rulemaking activity over the past fiscal year has been firmly on the deregulatory side of the ledger, bringing the overall Trump 2.0 cost ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 -- The American Action Forum issued the following insight: * * * October 7, 2026 The Trump Administration's Regulatory Budget in FY 2026 and Beyond Dan Goldbeck EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In fiscal year 2026, federal agencies published approximately $1.5 trillion in self-reported regulatory cost reductions under the Trump Administration's updated regulatory budget program. While a vast majority of this sum comes from just three rules, agency rulemaking activity over the past fiscal year has been firmly on the deregulatory side of the ledger, bringing the overall Trump 2.0 costsavings total to nearly $1.6 trillion.
As in President Trump's first term, it is possible the administration's deregulatory efforts have reached their apogee in the second year, with the most consequential rulemakings that are still under development potentially yielding sizable net costs.
-
INTRODUCTION
The Trump Administration's regulatory budget - as established in this term under Executive Order (EO) 14192 - continues to be the lodestar of its executive branch policymaking efforts. While a regulatory budget is, of course, substantially different from a fiscal budget, the closing of the fiscal year provides an apt opportunity to assess the administration's progress in conducting such an exercise. Over the course of fiscal year (FY) 2026, federal agencies published 152 final rules under EO 14192 whose combined estimated economic effects represented nearly $1.5 trillion in total net regulatory cost reductions - bringing the administration's overall to-date total to nearly $1.6 trillion. Despite that massive sum, a cursory look at some of the most significant rules still on the horizon suggests that - much as in the first Trump term - the administration may see diminishing returns in its deregulatory efforts going forward.
EO 14192 IMPLEMENTATION DURING FY 2026
The table below includes the top-line count and cumulative costs or savings from rules that: A) agencies finalized in FY 2026 (Oct 1, 2025, through September 30, 2026), B) included quantified costs or savings estimates, and C) contained some explicit mention of the rule's connection to the EO 14192 regulatory budget framework[1]. Please note that while the Trump Administration's own FY 2025 accounting - and thus presumably any forthcoming FY 2026 update - includes a broad scope of items (such as guidance documents), this American Action Forum (AAF) analysis confines itself to this subset of rulemakings. Past iterations of AAF's work on EO 14192 calculations can be found here (https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/the-2026-unified-agenda-checking-in-on-the-trump-2-0-deregulatory-agenda/), here (https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/2025-the-year-in-regulation/), and here (https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/the-trump-2-0-deregulatory-agenda-a-half-year-check-in/).
* * *
EO 14192 Category ... # of Rules ... Costs/Savings ($M)
Deregulatory ... 95 ... -1,548,420.3
Regulatory ... 15 ... 45,930.9
Exempt ... 19 ... 8,870.7
Not Applicable ... 23 ... 683.9
Net Total ... 152 ... -1,492,934.8
* * *
Federal agencies ended FY 2026 with 95 deregulatory rules against 15 regulatory actions, good for a roughly 6.3-to-1 ratio. In terms of the estimated economic impact of these rules, there has been a notable shift in the "deregulatory" total since AAF last examined the issue. The Department of Transportation's latest change to fuel efficiency standards - which came in just under the wire on September 30 - and the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) roll-back of carbon emissions standards for power plants combined to add roughly $378 billion to the "cost reductions" column. With that, total estimated net cost savings for FY 2026 under EO 14192 came in at just under $1.5 trillion.
Three rules (the two rules noted above and the EPA rule repealing the greenhouse gas "endangerment finding") accounted for roughly 95 percent of that savings total. Even if one were to remove those three outliers from consideration though, the other 149 rules included in the sample add up to nearly $25 billion in total net savings - signifying the overall deregulatory trend for the fiscal year. Adding the roughly $82 billion in total net savings from applicable rules finalized during FY 2025 brings the overall to-date total net savings for the Trump Administration to $1.57 trillion.
EXPECTATIONS FOR FY 2027
With agencies now moving into FY 2027 - and the second half of this Trump term - it is reasonable to examine how the regulatory budget will look going forward. Consider, for instance, that in the first Trump term, the only calendar year that had overall net cost reductions was 2018. This came even as 2019 and 2020 had sizable deregulatory actions under the auspices of the previous EO 13771 regulatory budget framework (such savings were eclipsed by even more outsized costs from rules falling outside of that EO's scope). The following table includes currently proposed rules one can expect agencies to finalize over the next year or so that have: A) currently estimated economic effects in the billions of dollars, and B) some clear EO 14192 designation under the categories included above.
Proposed Rule ... Agency ... Total Costs/Savings ($ Billions) ... EO 14192 Category
Rescission of Climate-Related Disclosure Rules ... Securities and Exchange Commission ... -35.4 ... Deregulatory
Enhancement of Emerging Growth Company Accommodations and Simplification of Filer Status for Reporting Companies ... Securities and Exchange Commission ... -13.6 ... Deregulatory
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category-Unmanaged Combustion Residual Leachate ... Environmental Protection Agency ... -11.0 ... Deregulatory
Amendments and Nonconformance Penalties for Model Year 2027 and Later Heavy-Duty Highway Engines and Amendments to Inducement Provisions for SCR-Equipped Diesel Engines ... Environmental Protection Agency ... -9.4 ... Deregulatory
Registering NFA Firearms That Fall Out of Government Contract ... Justice ... -8.3 ... Deregulatory
Risk Management and Financial Assurance for OCS Lease and Grant Obligations ... Interior ... -5.2 ... Deregulatory
Employee or Independent Contractor Status Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act ... Labor ... -4.3 ... Deregulatory
Fiduciary Duties in Selecting Designated Investment Alternatives ... Labor ... -4.1 ... Deregulatory
Pipeline Safety: Repair Criteria for Hazardous Liquid and Gas Transmission Pipelines ... Transportation ... -3.9 ... Deregulatory
Walking-Working Surfaces ... Labor ... -3.6 ... Deregulatory
Licensing Requirements for Microreactors and Other Reactors With Comparable Risk Profiles ... Nuclear Regulatory Commission ... -3.5 ... Deregulatory
Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities; Legacy/CCRMU Amendments ... Environmental Protection Agency ... -3.5 ... Deregulatory
Reducing Federal Burden for Head Start Programs ... Health & Human Services ... -3.3 ... Deregulatory
Political Contributions by Certain Investment Advisers ... Securities and Exchange Commission ... -3.0 ... Deregulatory
Electronic Disclosure by Group Health Plans Under ERISA ... Labor ... -2.8 ... Deregulatory
Extending the Compliance Deadline for the PFOA and PFOS Maximum Contaminant Levels ... Environmental Protection Agency ... -2.7 ... Deregulatory
Data Reporting Requirements for Certain Event Contracts ... Commodity Futures Trading Commission ... -2.0 ... Deregulatory
Maximum Line Speed Under the New Swine Slaughter Inspection System (NSIS) ... Agriculture ... -1.8 ... Deregulatory
Health Data, Technology, and Interoperability: ASTP/ONC Deregulatory Actions To Unleash Prosperity ... Health & Human Services ... -1.8 ... Deregulatory
Semiannual Reporting ... Securities and Exchange Commission ... -1.7 ... Deregulatory
Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf-Revisions to the Requirements for Exploratory Drilling on the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf ... Interior ... -1.7 ... Deregulatory
Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act; Common Sense Approach to Chemical Accident Prevention ... Environmental Protection Agency ... -1.7 ... Deregulatory
Revision of Tier 4 Criteria Pollutant Standards, Part 1: Amendments to Phase-In Schedule for Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles ... Environmental Protection Agency ... -1.7 ... Deregulatory
Maximum Line Speed Rates for Young Chicken and Turkey Establishments Operating Under the New Poultry Inspection System ... Agriculture ... -1.3 ... Deregulatory
Pipeline Safety: Breakout Tank Inspection Rule ... Transportation ... -1.2 ... Deregulatory
Form PF; Reporting Requirements for All Filers ... Securities and Exchange Commission ... -1.2 ... Deregulatory
Electronic Delivery of Information Under the Federal Securities Laws ... Securities and Exchange Commission ... -1.1 ... Deregulatory
Passports: Expanding Online Passport Renewal Overseas ... State ... -1.1 ... Deregulatory
Removing Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached "Stabilizing Braces" ... Justice -1.0 ... Deregulatory
Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Excluding Road and Intermodal Container Transport Refrigeration Units From the Hydrofluorocarbon Leak Repair Requirements ... Environmental Protection Agency ... -1.0 ... Deregulatory
Federal Acquisition Regulation: Prohibition on Certain Semiconductor Products and Services ... Defense ... 1.3 ... Exempt
Safety Standard for Lithium-Ion Batteries Used in Micromobility Products and Electrical Systems of Micromobility Products Containing Such Batteries ... Consumer Product Safety Commission ... 1.8 ... Regulatory
Collection and Use of Biometrics by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ... Homeland Security ... 2.0 ... Exempt
Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization: The Secretary's Recognition of Accrediting Agencies: Institutional Eligibility Under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended, Student Assistance General Provisions ... Education ... 3.5 ... Regulatory
Clarification of Discretionary Employment Authorization for Certain Aliens ... Homeland Security ... 13.5 ... Exempt
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Changes in Federal-State Administrative Cost Sharing ... Agriculture ... 16.9 ... Not Applicable
Employment Authorization Reform for Asylum Applicants ... Homeland Security ... 144.3 ... Exempt
* * *
From a sheer rule-count metric, this cohort of rules achieves a 15-to-1 ratio with 30 deregulatory actions against two regulatory ones. There is another handful of rules that fall into either the "Exempt" or "Not Applicable" categories. One of these exempt rules - the Department of Homeland Security rulemaking on "Employment Authorization Reform for Asylum Applicants" - proves to the most consequential, with its $144.3 billion in currently estimated costs decidedly overtaking the various deregulatory actions and yielding $45.5 billion in total net costs across the 37 forthcoming rulemakings included here.
Another resource in forecasting near-term significant rulemakings is the latest Unified Agenda. While most agencies' entries include limited data, there are some instances where they identify and describe potential economic impacts. There are two deregulatory rules under development from Department of Health & Human Services and EPA, that could bring cost reductions that approach the billion-dollar threshold. Another action carrying a "regulatory" designation, however, may add a significant sum to that side of the ledger. The Food and Drug Administration's planned rulemaking on "Transparency in Direct-to-Consumer Advertising" does not include a preliminary cost estimate but does state that: "To provide context for the magnitude of such potential costs, we note that, in 2023, the top ten pharmaceutical companies spent a combined $13.8 billion on the promotion of drugs directed at U.S. consumers and physicians."
CONCLUSION
Regulatory policy over the past several years, whether it be under Biden or Trump, has entered the trillion-dollar realm. Indeed, much of the current administration's rulemaking efforts have been focused primarily on dismantling the roughly $1.8 trillion in self-reported regulatory costs implemented by its predecessor. In terms of gross impact, the scale of this Trump regulatory budget program has been an order of magnitude greater than that seen during the first Trump term. A similar trendline to that first iteration looms large though. Despite the clear intention to remain in a deregulatory posture, agencies may have already exhausted their most significant cost-cutting rules while some substantial burden-adding items remain on the horizon.
[1] The "Exempt" category includes rules where the agency cited one of the exemptions explicitly mentioned in either the EO or its implementation guidance. The "Not Applicable" category includes rules where the agency mentioned EO 14192 but did not give a specific designation to the rule.
* * *
Dan Goldbeck is the Director of Regulatory Policy at the American Action Forum.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/the-trump-administrations-regulatory-budget-in-fy-2026-and-beyond/
[Category: Think Tank]
* * *
October 7, 2026
The Trump Administration's Regulatory Budget in FY 2026 and Beyond
Dan Goldbeck
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In fiscal year 2026, federal agencies published approximately $1.5 trillion in self-reported regulatory cost reductions under the Trump Administration's updated regulatory budget program.
While a vast majority of this sum comes from just three rules, agency rulemaking activity over the past fiscal year has been firmly on the deregulatory side of the ledger, bringing the overall Trump 2.0 cost ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 -- The American Action Forum issued the following insight: * * * October 7, 2026 The Trump Administration's Regulatory Budget in FY 2026 and Beyond Dan Goldbeck EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In fiscal year 2026, federal agencies published approximately $1.5 trillion in self-reported regulatory cost reductions under the Trump Administration's updated regulatory budget program. While a vast majority of this sum comes from just three rules, agency rulemaking activity over the past fiscal year has been firmly on the deregulatory side of the ledger, bringing the overall Trump 2.0 costsavings total to nearly $1.6 trillion.
As in President Trump's first term, it is possible the administration's deregulatory efforts have reached their apogee in the second year, with the most consequential rulemakings that are still under development potentially yielding sizable net costs.
-
INTRODUCTION
The Trump Administration's regulatory budget - as established in this term under Executive Order (EO) 14192 - continues to be the lodestar of its executive branch policymaking efforts. While a regulatory budget is, of course, substantially different from a fiscal budget, the closing of the fiscal year provides an apt opportunity to assess the administration's progress in conducting such an exercise. Over the course of fiscal year (FY) 2026, federal agencies published 152 final rules under EO 14192 whose combined estimated economic effects represented nearly $1.5 trillion in total net regulatory cost reductions - bringing the administration's overall to-date total to nearly $1.6 trillion. Despite that massive sum, a cursory look at some of the most significant rules still on the horizon suggests that - much as in the first Trump term - the administration may see diminishing returns in its deregulatory efforts going forward.
EO 14192 IMPLEMENTATION DURING FY 2026
The table below includes the top-line count and cumulative costs or savings from rules that: A) agencies finalized in FY 2026 (Oct 1, 2025, through September 30, 2026), B) included quantified costs or savings estimates, and C) contained some explicit mention of the rule's connection to the EO 14192 regulatory budget framework[1]. Please note that while the Trump Administration's own FY 2025 accounting - and thus presumably any forthcoming FY 2026 update - includes a broad scope of items (such as guidance documents), this American Action Forum (AAF) analysis confines itself to this subset of rulemakings. Past iterations of AAF's work on EO 14192 calculations can be found here (https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/the-2026-unified-agenda-checking-in-on-the-trump-2-0-deregulatory-agenda/), here (https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/2025-the-year-in-regulation/), and here (https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/the-trump-2-0-deregulatory-agenda-a-half-year-check-in/).
* * *
EO 14192 Category ... # of Rules ... Costs/Savings ($M)
Deregulatory ... 95 ... -1,548,420.3
Regulatory ... 15 ... 45,930.9
Exempt ... 19 ... 8,870.7
Not Applicable ... 23 ... 683.9
Net Total ... 152 ... -1,492,934.8
* * *
Federal agencies ended FY 2026 with 95 deregulatory rules against 15 regulatory actions, good for a roughly 6.3-to-1 ratio. In terms of the estimated economic impact of these rules, there has been a notable shift in the "deregulatory" total since AAF last examined the issue. The Department of Transportation's latest change to fuel efficiency standards - which came in just under the wire on September 30 - and the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) roll-back of carbon emissions standards for power plants combined to add roughly $378 billion to the "cost reductions" column. With that, total estimated net cost savings for FY 2026 under EO 14192 came in at just under $1.5 trillion.
Three rules (the two rules noted above and the EPA rule repealing the greenhouse gas "endangerment finding") accounted for roughly 95 percent of that savings total. Even if one were to remove those three outliers from consideration though, the other 149 rules included in the sample add up to nearly $25 billion in total net savings - signifying the overall deregulatory trend for the fiscal year. Adding the roughly $82 billion in total net savings from applicable rules finalized during FY 2025 brings the overall to-date total net savings for the Trump Administration to $1.57 trillion.
EXPECTATIONS FOR FY 2027
With agencies now moving into FY 2027 - and the second half of this Trump term - it is reasonable to examine how the regulatory budget will look going forward. Consider, for instance, that in the first Trump term, the only calendar year that had overall net cost reductions was 2018. This came even as 2019 and 2020 had sizable deregulatory actions under the auspices of the previous EO 13771 regulatory budget framework (such savings were eclipsed by even more outsized costs from rules falling outside of that EO's scope). The following table includes currently proposed rules one can expect agencies to finalize over the next year or so that have: A) currently estimated economic effects in the billions of dollars, and B) some clear EO 14192 designation under the categories included above.
Proposed Rule ... Agency ... Total Costs/Savings ($ Billions) ... EO 14192 Category
Rescission of Climate-Related Disclosure Rules ... Securities and Exchange Commission ... -35.4 ... Deregulatory
Enhancement of Emerging Growth Company Accommodations and Simplification of Filer Status for Reporting Companies ... Securities and Exchange Commission ... -13.6 ... Deregulatory
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category-Unmanaged Combustion Residual Leachate ... Environmental Protection Agency ... -11.0 ... Deregulatory
Amendments and Nonconformance Penalties for Model Year 2027 and Later Heavy-Duty Highway Engines and Amendments to Inducement Provisions for SCR-Equipped Diesel Engines ... Environmental Protection Agency ... -9.4 ... Deregulatory
Registering NFA Firearms That Fall Out of Government Contract ... Justice ... -8.3 ... Deregulatory
Risk Management and Financial Assurance for OCS Lease and Grant Obligations ... Interior ... -5.2 ... Deregulatory
Employee or Independent Contractor Status Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act ... Labor ... -4.3 ... Deregulatory
Fiduciary Duties in Selecting Designated Investment Alternatives ... Labor ... -4.1 ... Deregulatory
Pipeline Safety: Repair Criteria for Hazardous Liquid and Gas Transmission Pipelines ... Transportation ... -3.9 ... Deregulatory
Walking-Working Surfaces ... Labor ... -3.6 ... Deregulatory
Licensing Requirements for Microreactors and Other Reactors With Comparable Risk Profiles ... Nuclear Regulatory Commission ... -3.5 ... Deregulatory
Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities; Legacy/CCRMU Amendments ... Environmental Protection Agency ... -3.5 ... Deregulatory
Reducing Federal Burden for Head Start Programs ... Health & Human Services ... -3.3 ... Deregulatory
Political Contributions by Certain Investment Advisers ... Securities and Exchange Commission ... -3.0 ... Deregulatory
Electronic Disclosure by Group Health Plans Under ERISA ... Labor ... -2.8 ... Deregulatory
Extending the Compliance Deadline for the PFOA and PFOS Maximum Contaminant Levels ... Environmental Protection Agency ... -2.7 ... Deregulatory
Data Reporting Requirements for Certain Event Contracts ... Commodity Futures Trading Commission ... -2.0 ... Deregulatory
Maximum Line Speed Under the New Swine Slaughter Inspection System (NSIS) ... Agriculture ... -1.8 ... Deregulatory
Health Data, Technology, and Interoperability: ASTP/ONC Deregulatory Actions To Unleash Prosperity ... Health & Human Services ... -1.8 ... Deregulatory
Semiannual Reporting ... Securities and Exchange Commission ... -1.7 ... Deregulatory
Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf-Revisions to the Requirements for Exploratory Drilling on the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf ... Interior ... -1.7 ... Deregulatory
Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act; Common Sense Approach to Chemical Accident Prevention ... Environmental Protection Agency ... -1.7 ... Deregulatory
Revision of Tier 4 Criteria Pollutant Standards, Part 1: Amendments to Phase-In Schedule for Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles ... Environmental Protection Agency ... -1.7 ... Deregulatory
Maximum Line Speed Rates for Young Chicken and Turkey Establishments Operating Under the New Poultry Inspection System ... Agriculture ... -1.3 ... Deregulatory
Pipeline Safety: Breakout Tank Inspection Rule ... Transportation ... -1.2 ... Deregulatory
Form PF; Reporting Requirements for All Filers ... Securities and Exchange Commission ... -1.2 ... Deregulatory
Electronic Delivery of Information Under the Federal Securities Laws ... Securities and Exchange Commission ... -1.1 ... Deregulatory
Passports: Expanding Online Passport Renewal Overseas ... State ... -1.1 ... Deregulatory
Removing Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached "Stabilizing Braces" ... Justice -1.0 ... Deregulatory
Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Excluding Road and Intermodal Container Transport Refrigeration Units From the Hydrofluorocarbon Leak Repair Requirements ... Environmental Protection Agency ... -1.0 ... Deregulatory
Federal Acquisition Regulation: Prohibition on Certain Semiconductor Products and Services ... Defense ... 1.3 ... Exempt
Safety Standard for Lithium-Ion Batteries Used in Micromobility Products and Electrical Systems of Micromobility Products Containing Such Batteries ... Consumer Product Safety Commission ... 1.8 ... Regulatory
Collection and Use of Biometrics by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ... Homeland Security ... 2.0 ... Exempt
Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization: The Secretary's Recognition of Accrediting Agencies: Institutional Eligibility Under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended, Student Assistance General Provisions ... Education ... 3.5 ... Regulatory
Clarification of Discretionary Employment Authorization for Certain Aliens ... Homeland Security ... 13.5 ... Exempt
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Changes in Federal-State Administrative Cost Sharing ... Agriculture ... 16.9 ... Not Applicable
Employment Authorization Reform for Asylum Applicants ... Homeland Security ... 144.3 ... Exempt
* * *
From a sheer rule-count metric, this cohort of rules achieves a 15-to-1 ratio with 30 deregulatory actions against two regulatory ones. There is another handful of rules that fall into either the "Exempt" or "Not Applicable" categories. One of these exempt rules - the Department of Homeland Security rulemaking on "Employment Authorization Reform for Asylum Applicants" - proves to the most consequential, with its $144.3 billion in currently estimated costs decidedly overtaking the various deregulatory actions and yielding $45.5 billion in total net costs across the 37 forthcoming rulemakings included here.
Another resource in forecasting near-term significant rulemakings is the latest Unified Agenda. While most agencies' entries include limited data, there are some instances where they identify and describe potential economic impacts. There are two deregulatory rules under development from Department of Health & Human Services and EPA, that could bring cost reductions that approach the billion-dollar threshold. Another action carrying a "regulatory" designation, however, may add a significant sum to that side of the ledger. The Food and Drug Administration's planned rulemaking on "Transparency in Direct-to-Consumer Advertising" does not include a preliminary cost estimate but does state that: "To provide context for the magnitude of such potential costs, we note that, in 2023, the top ten pharmaceutical companies spent a combined $13.8 billion on the promotion of drugs directed at U.S. consumers and physicians."
CONCLUSION
Regulatory policy over the past several years, whether it be under Biden or Trump, has entered the trillion-dollar realm. Indeed, much of the current administration's rulemaking efforts have been focused primarily on dismantling the roughly $1.8 trillion in self-reported regulatory costs implemented by its predecessor. In terms of gross impact, the scale of this Trump regulatory budget program has been an order of magnitude greater than that seen during the first Trump term. A similar trendline to that first iteration looms large though. Despite the clear intention to remain in a deregulatory posture, agencies may have already exhausted their most significant cost-cutting rules while some substantial burden-adding items remain on the horizon.
[1] The "Exempt" category includes rules where the agency cited one of the exemptions explicitly mentioned in either the EO or its implementation guidance. The "Not Applicable" category includes rules where the agency mentioned EO 14192 but did not give a specific designation to the rule.
* * *
Dan Goldbeck is the Director of Regulatory Policy at the American Action Forum.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/the-trump-administrations-regulatory-budget-in-fy-2026-and-beyond/
[Category: Think Tank]
American Action Forum Issues Insight: Pacing the AI Frontier - An (Allegedly Illegal) Agreement
WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 -- The American Action Forum issued the following insight:
* * *
October 7, 2026
Pacing the AI Frontier: An (Allegedly Illegal) Agreement
Fred Ashton
Executive Summary
* On September 18, four leading artificial intelligence (AI) firms - Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceX AI, and Google - were sued in federal court for allegedly agreeing to slow the pace of AI development in violation of federal antitrust law.
* The lawsuit, brought by a class of four paid subscribers, alleges a horizonal agreement stemming from an industry proposal calling for "industry-wide coordination" to slow ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 -- The American Action Forum issued the following insight: * * * October 7, 2026 Pacing the AI Frontier: An (Allegedly Illegal) Agreement Fred Ashton Executive Summary * On September 18, four leading artificial intelligence (AI) firms - Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceX AI, and Google - were sued in federal court for allegedly agreeing to slow the pace of AI development in violation of federal antitrust law. * The lawsuit, brought by a class of four paid subscribers, alleges a horizonal agreement stemming from an industry proposal calling for "industry-wide coordination" to slowdown development and create safety limits amid the industry's rapid development of AI capabilities.
* With safety at top of mind and industry moving at breakneck speed, Congress should reject calls for an antitrust exemption; AI firms can create voluntary safety standards and engage in procompetitive collaborations under existing law without slowing product development.
-
Introduction
On September 18, four companies at the frontier of artificial intelligence (AI) - Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceX AI, and Google - were sued in federal court for allegedly agreeing to slow the pace of AI development, violating federal antitrust law.
The lawsuit, brought by a class of four paid subscribers, alleges a horizonal conspiracy stemming from an industry proposal calling for "industry-wide coordination" to slow down development and create safety limits amid the industry's rapid development of AI capabilities.
With safety at top of mind and industry moving at breakneck speed, Congress should resist creating an antitrust exemption for dominant AI firms. Instead, these companies can create voluntary safety standards and engage in procompetitive collaborations under existing law without slowing product development.
Section 1 of the Sherman Act and the Alleged Agreement
A class of four paid subscribers filed suit against Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceX AI, and Google DeepMind under Section 1 of the Sherman Act - which prohibits "every" contract, combination, or conspiracy "in restraint of trade" - alleging an illegal horizontal agreement to suppress competition by slowing product quality improvements.
The complaint stems from a September 12, 2026, essay by Anthropic's Chief Executive Officer Dario Amodei titled "We Must Pace the Frontier." In the piece, Amodei called for "industry-wide coordination" to "establish common safety standards as well as limits on the rate of unchecked AI progress," declaring that developers "must slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of AI models."
That same day, executives at competing firms publicly endorsed the proposal on social media. SpaceX AI founder Elon Musk took to his X platform and quote-posted Amodei's proposal, writing "Dario is right." OpenAI CEO Sam Altman similarly quote-posted, "I agree with Dario that we need to pace the frontier," while Google DeepMind co-founder Demis Hassabis called the essay "the right path forward."
According to the plaintiffs - who hold paid subscriptions to Anthropic's Claude, OpenAI's ChatGPT, SpaceX AI's Grok, and Google's Gemini - subscribers pay for access to the "most capable models" and to continuous improvements. These features, the plaintiffs assert, are used by the companies to "market and price" the subscriptions and argued that an agreement to slow technological progresses "lowers the quality of what subscribers receive for the price they pay."
The lawsuit also alleged that this concerted action predated Amodei's essay and the subsequent responses by months. In July 2026, Amodei, OpenAI's Chief Scientist, a Google DeepMind co-founder, and other high-ranking employees from leading AI labs acknowledged the "intense competitive pressure" not to unilaterally slow development.
Amodei's Ask
In his essay, Amodei framed the need for the slowdown as vital for safety, explaining that today's AI models "are an almost endless gold mine of insight into both how to build AI well and what can sometimes go wrong with it if it isn't built well." Slowing down the pace of development, therefore, would afford the industry "an extra year or two before models reach critical levels of capability" and "greatly reduce the risk that something goes seriously wrong."
The following is Amodei's proposed three-step plan to pace the frontier:
1. Embedded Evaluators. Each frontier AI company commits to giving ongoing, employee-like access to a team of embedded third-party evaluators (such as METR), whose role is to verify adherence to safety practices and commitments, report incidents, and help assess the alignment of not just completed AI models but training pipelines and processes. This is the key step for verifiability of any pacing commitments, and has precedent in the banking industry, which sometimes involves regulatory "supervisors" embedded along with employees. Anthropic is unilaterally committing to this step now. We intend this to be part of a broader push to redouble efforts on our safety and alignment work.
2. Democratic Coordination. Frontier AI companies within democratic countries coordinate to establish common safety standards as well as limits on the rate of unchecked AI progress. Some forms of coordination that would be impactful for pacing are legally challenging, and will require government support.
3. Global Coordination. The US and other democratic governments attempt to coordinate with authoritarian governments, to the extent this is possible, while taking seriously the challenges of verifying compliance.
Amodei explicitly acknowledged that the second step "requires industry-wide coordination" in conjunction with "government mediation or waivers of antitrust restrictions." These conditions are necessary for AI developers to do the work "without sacrificing commercial advantage or the United States' lead in AI." In other words, competition to improve models is so intense domestically and internationally - specifically with China - that any firm that unilaterally slows down would be punished by the market.
Forget Exemptions, There Are Other Solutions
Part of Amodei's proposal calls for AI companies to establish "common safety standards," which, according to the essay, requires a "narrow [antitrust] waiver for certain kinds of safety conversations." Yet Congress should disregard this request. Antitrust exemptions inherently require an understanding of the competitive structure of a market in the future, a task that comes with wide, and potentially costly error bands - especially in a market as rapidly changing as AI. Moreover, incumbents can use sweeping antitrust exemptions to create a moat that solidifies their market position. Federal law already accommodates collaborations among competitors in different forms with varying degrees of regulatory oversight.
Self-Regulatory Organization and Standards Development Organization
In requesting antitrust relief, Amodei pointed to Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis's proposal of a self-regulatory organization (SRO) to create standards for frontier AI lab safety and security practices. Hassabis's proposal called for an SRO to develop "assessment protocols" and to "conduct testing in areas relevant to national security." Furthermore, the SRO would create metrics and benchmarks to qualify AI as "Frontier-class." Google released a white paper exploring this option in which the company called for a frontier AI regulatory organization.
Hassabis's proposal and the Google white paper pointed to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) as a model for an SRO. FINRA writes and enforces rules that govern broker-dealers with oversight from the Securities and Exchange Commission. Google identified the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, and the American Medical Association as examples of "independent, government-supervised, industry-backed regulators." As Google explains, these "industry-funded bodies...write and enforce binding rules on their members," but "operate under the supervision (and ultimate veto) of a government agency."
Another option would be to create industry-wide safety standards through a formal standards development organization (SDO). SDOs are entities that bring together industry stakeholders to create, establish, and promote technical standards to ensure product safety, interoperability, and quality. Participants generate these standards through industry consensus and adopt them voluntarily, preventing dominant firms - such as the four named in the lawsuit - from creating barriers to entry.
SDOs can neither mandate firms adopt standards nor fine companies for failing to do so. SROs, by contrast, can levy fines, expel bad actors, or otherwise sanction firms and individuals from working in the industry. Without government oversight, an SRO risks antitrust infractions, especially if it creates barriers to entry that protect incumbents or prevent firms from releasing new models without the approval of competitors.
Collaboration Among Competitors
In the jointly published 2000 Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) explained that collaborations involving research and development are often considered procompetitive. Despite support for these guidelines being officially withdrawn by the agencies in December 2024, the evaluation framework outlined in the document is still supported by caselaw. Replacement guidelines are currently under consideration.
Notably, the 2000 Guidelines explain that such joint ventures - excluding those to fix prices or output, rig bids, or divide markets - are evaluated under the rule of reason framework. Under rule of reason, courts weigh the negative, anticompetitive effects against procompetitive justifications. In other words, security collaborations among competitors are not per se illegal.
Furthermore, cybersecurity information sharing among competitors already enjoys an antitrust exemption under the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 (CISA). The act "provides a statutory exemption to Federal antitrust laws for the sharing between and among private entities of cyber threat indicators, defensive measures, or assistance relating to the prevention, investigation, or mitigation of a cybersecurity threat for a cybersecurity purpose." Moreover, the CISA guidance document points to a DOJ and FTC May 2014 policy statement supporting the rule of reason framework.
These guidelines and the rule of reason framework offer a set of general principles that help guide companies. Of note, they can legally adapt to market evolutions while protecting the competitive process.
Safety as a Mode of Competition
Competition for AI is not limited to the price firms charge their customers for AI subscriptions. Nonprice factors including reliability, speed, accuracy, and safety are all modes of competition. Firms can take unilateral action to set qualitative and quantitative safety standards and use them to differentiate their product.
Regulation and Liability
Another approach discussed by Neil Chilson, Head of AI Policy at the Abundance Institute, would be a congressionally mandated duty on frontier model developers to "reasonably mitigate the risk of mass casualties and catastrophic property loss." Chilson explained that
"The statute should not mandate particular model design, testing method, or governance system. It should require covered developers to disclose dangerous capabilities and model-specific mitigations, and to give the government a reasonable way to verify such disclosures. It should also require incident reporting. This framework should replace state efforts at regulating model safety -- this is a national issue and needs a national standard."
Meanwhile, Manhattan Institute Director of Research Judge Glock has advocated for AI safety to "run[] through the old-fashioned legal system. Torts, or legal claims for damages against a company, may provide the best mechanism to prevent the dangers of AI while preserving its advantages." Glock explained that "The benefit of the tort system is that it forces those companies to avoid such harms in their own self-interest and mitigate them step-by-step."
Conclusion
With four leading AI developers facing a lawsuit over an alleged agreement to slow product development, Congress should reject calls for an antitrust exemption. Existing frameworks, including SDOs, procompetitive collaborations, and market incentives provide firms with paths to innovate that do not violate federal antitrust law.
* * *
Fred Ashton is the Director of Competition Policy at the American Action Forum.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/pacing-the-ai-frontier-an-allegedly-illegal-agreement/
[Category: Think Tank]
* * *
October 7, 2026
Pacing the AI Frontier: An (Allegedly Illegal) Agreement
Fred Ashton
Executive Summary
* On September 18, four leading artificial intelligence (AI) firms - Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceX AI, and Google - were sued in federal court for allegedly agreeing to slow the pace of AI development in violation of federal antitrust law.
* The lawsuit, brought by a class of four paid subscribers, alleges a horizonal agreement stemming from an industry proposal calling for "industry-wide coordination" to slow ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 -- The American Action Forum issued the following insight: * * * October 7, 2026 Pacing the AI Frontier: An (Allegedly Illegal) Agreement Fred Ashton Executive Summary * On September 18, four leading artificial intelligence (AI) firms - Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceX AI, and Google - were sued in federal court for allegedly agreeing to slow the pace of AI development in violation of federal antitrust law. * The lawsuit, brought by a class of four paid subscribers, alleges a horizonal agreement stemming from an industry proposal calling for "industry-wide coordination" to slowdown development and create safety limits amid the industry's rapid development of AI capabilities.
* With safety at top of mind and industry moving at breakneck speed, Congress should reject calls for an antitrust exemption; AI firms can create voluntary safety standards and engage in procompetitive collaborations under existing law without slowing product development.
-
Introduction
On September 18, four companies at the frontier of artificial intelligence (AI) - Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceX AI, and Google - were sued in federal court for allegedly agreeing to slow the pace of AI development, violating federal antitrust law.
The lawsuit, brought by a class of four paid subscribers, alleges a horizonal conspiracy stemming from an industry proposal calling for "industry-wide coordination" to slow down development and create safety limits amid the industry's rapid development of AI capabilities.
With safety at top of mind and industry moving at breakneck speed, Congress should resist creating an antitrust exemption for dominant AI firms. Instead, these companies can create voluntary safety standards and engage in procompetitive collaborations under existing law without slowing product development.
Section 1 of the Sherman Act and the Alleged Agreement
A class of four paid subscribers filed suit against Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceX AI, and Google DeepMind under Section 1 of the Sherman Act - which prohibits "every" contract, combination, or conspiracy "in restraint of trade" - alleging an illegal horizontal agreement to suppress competition by slowing product quality improvements.
The complaint stems from a September 12, 2026, essay by Anthropic's Chief Executive Officer Dario Amodei titled "We Must Pace the Frontier." In the piece, Amodei called for "industry-wide coordination" to "establish common safety standards as well as limits on the rate of unchecked AI progress," declaring that developers "must slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of AI models."
That same day, executives at competing firms publicly endorsed the proposal on social media. SpaceX AI founder Elon Musk took to his X platform and quote-posted Amodei's proposal, writing "Dario is right." OpenAI CEO Sam Altman similarly quote-posted, "I agree with Dario that we need to pace the frontier," while Google DeepMind co-founder Demis Hassabis called the essay "the right path forward."
According to the plaintiffs - who hold paid subscriptions to Anthropic's Claude, OpenAI's ChatGPT, SpaceX AI's Grok, and Google's Gemini - subscribers pay for access to the "most capable models" and to continuous improvements. These features, the plaintiffs assert, are used by the companies to "market and price" the subscriptions and argued that an agreement to slow technological progresses "lowers the quality of what subscribers receive for the price they pay."
The lawsuit also alleged that this concerted action predated Amodei's essay and the subsequent responses by months. In July 2026, Amodei, OpenAI's Chief Scientist, a Google DeepMind co-founder, and other high-ranking employees from leading AI labs acknowledged the "intense competitive pressure" not to unilaterally slow development.
Amodei's Ask
In his essay, Amodei framed the need for the slowdown as vital for safety, explaining that today's AI models "are an almost endless gold mine of insight into both how to build AI well and what can sometimes go wrong with it if it isn't built well." Slowing down the pace of development, therefore, would afford the industry "an extra year or two before models reach critical levels of capability" and "greatly reduce the risk that something goes seriously wrong."
The following is Amodei's proposed three-step plan to pace the frontier:
1. Embedded Evaluators. Each frontier AI company commits to giving ongoing, employee-like access to a team of embedded third-party evaluators (such as METR), whose role is to verify adherence to safety practices and commitments, report incidents, and help assess the alignment of not just completed AI models but training pipelines and processes. This is the key step for verifiability of any pacing commitments, and has precedent in the banking industry, which sometimes involves regulatory "supervisors" embedded along with employees. Anthropic is unilaterally committing to this step now. We intend this to be part of a broader push to redouble efforts on our safety and alignment work.
2. Democratic Coordination. Frontier AI companies within democratic countries coordinate to establish common safety standards as well as limits on the rate of unchecked AI progress. Some forms of coordination that would be impactful for pacing are legally challenging, and will require government support.
3. Global Coordination. The US and other democratic governments attempt to coordinate with authoritarian governments, to the extent this is possible, while taking seriously the challenges of verifying compliance.
Amodei explicitly acknowledged that the second step "requires industry-wide coordination" in conjunction with "government mediation or waivers of antitrust restrictions." These conditions are necessary for AI developers to do the work "without sacrificing commercial advantage or the United States' lead in AI." In other words, competition to improve models is so intense domestically and internationally - specifically with China - that any firm that unilaterally slows down would be punished by the market.
Forget Exemptions, There Are Other Solutions
Part of Amodei's proposal calls for AI companies to establish "common safety standards," which, according to the essay, requires a "narrow [antitrust] waiver for certain kinds of safety conversations." Yet Congress should disregard this request. Antitrust exemptions inherently require an understanding of the competitive structure of a market in the future, a task that comes with wide, and potentially costly error bands - especially in a market as rapidly changing as AI. Moreover, incumbents can use sweeping antitrust exemptions to create a moat that solidifies their market position. Federal law already accommodates collaborations among competitors in different forms with varying degrees of regulatory oversight.
Self-Regulatory Organization and Standards Development Organization
In requesting antitrust relief, Amodei pointed to Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis's proposal of a self-regulatory organization (SRO) to create standards for frontier AI lab safety and security practices. Hassabis's proposal called for an SRO to develop "assessment protocols" and to "conduct testing in areas relevant to national security." Furthermore, the SRO would create metrics and benchmarks to qualify AI as "Frontier-class." Google released a white paper exploring this option in which the company called for a frontier AI regulatory organization.
Hassabis's proposal and the Google white paper pointed to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) as a model for an SRO. FINRA writes and enforces rules that govern broker-dealers with oversight from the Securities and Exchange Commission. Google identified the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, and the American Medical Association as examples of "independent, government-supervised, industry-backed regulators." As Google explains, these "industry-funded bodies...write and enforce binding rules on their members," but "operate under the supervision (and ultimate veto) of a government agency."
Another option would be to create industry-wide safety standards through a formal standards development organization (SDO). SDOs are entities that bring together industry stakeholders to create, establish, and promote technical standards to ensure product safety, interoperability, and quality. Participants generate these standards through industry consensus and adopt them voluntarily, preventing dominant firms - such as the four named in the lawsuit - from creating barriers to entry.
SDOs can neither mandate firms adopt standards nor fine companies for failing to do so. SROs, by contrast, can levy fines, expel bad actors, or otherwise sanction firms and individuals from working in the industry. Without government oversight, an SRO risks antitrust infractions, especially if it creates barriers to entry that protect incumbents or prevent firms from releasing new models without the approval of competitors.
Collaboration Among Competitors
In the jointly published 2000 Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) explained that collaborations involving research and development are often considered procompetitive. Despite support for these guidelines being officially withdrawn by the agencies in December 2024, the evaluation framework outlined in the document is still supported by caselaw. Replacement guidelines are currently under consideration.
Notably, the 2000 Guidelines explain that such joint ventures - excluding those to fix prices or output, rig bids, or divide markets - are evaluated under the rule of reason framework. Under rule of reason, courts weigh the negative, anticompetitive effects against procompetitive justifications. In other words, security collaborations among competitors are not per se illegal.
Furthermore, cybersecurity information sharing among competitors already enjoys an antitrust exemption under the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 (CISA). The act "provides a statutory exemption to Federal antitrust laws for the sharing between and among private entities of cyber threat indicators, defensive measures, or assistance relating to the prevention, investigation, or mitigation of a cybersecurity threat for a cybersecurity purpose." Moreover, the CISA guidance document points to a DOJ and FTC May 2014 policy statement supporting the rule of reason framework.
These guidelines and the rule of reason framework offer a set of general principles that help guide companies. Of note, they can legally adapt to market evolutions while protecting the competitive process.
Safety as a Mode of Competition
Competition for AI is not limited to the price firms charge their customers for AI subscriptions. Nonprice factors including reliability, speed, accuracy, and safety are all modes of competition. Firms can take unilateral action to set qualitative and quantitative safety standards and use them to differentiate their product.
Regulation and Liability
Another approach discussed by Neil Chilson, Head of AI Policy at the Abundance Institute, would be a congressionally mandated duty on frontier model developers to "reasonably mitigate the risk of mass casualties and catastrophic property loss." Chilson explained that
"The statute should not mandate particular model design, testing method, or governance system. It should require covered developers to disclose dangerous capabilities and model-specific mitigations, and to give the government a reasonable way to verify such disclosures. It should also require incident reporting. This framework should replace state efforts at regulating model safety -- this is a national issue and needs a national standard."
Meanwhile, Manhattan Institute Director of Research Judge Glock has advocated for AI safety to "run[] through the old-fashioned legal system. Torts, or legal claims for damages against a company, may provide the best mechanism to prevent the dangers of AI while preserving its advantages." Glock explained that "The benefit of the tort system is that it forces those companies to avoid such harms in their own self-interest and mitigate them step-by-step."
Conclusion
With four leading AI developers facing a lawsuit over an alleged agreement to slow product development, Congress should reject calls for an antitrust exemption. Existing frameworks, including SDOs, procompetitive collaborations, and market incentives provide firms with paths to innovate that do not violate federal antitrust law.
* * *
Fred Ashton is the Director of Competition Policy at the American Action Forum.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/pacing-the-ai-frontier-an-allegedly-illegal-agreement/
[Category: Think Tank]