Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Manhattan Institute Issues Commentary to Wall Street Journal: Bob Dylan Does It on His Own Terms
NEW YORK, May 22 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on May 21, 2026, by senior fellow James B. Meigs to the Wall Street Journal:
* * *
Bob Dylan Does It on His Own Terms
Almost 85, the iconic songwriter is still innovating.
*
Bob Dylan turns 85 on Sunday. He plans to spend the summer the way he has spent almost every summer since 1988, performing to large crowds across the U.S. Not all audiences will be thrilled by what they see--especially if they expect a reprise of the ardent protest singer, the defiant electric-rocker, or any of Mr. Dylan's other incarnations.
What
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, May 22 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on May 21, 2026, by senior fellow James B. Meigs to the Wall Street Journal:
* * *
Bob Dylan Does It on His Own Terms
Almost 85, the iconic songwriter is still innovating.
*
Bob Dylan turns 85 on Sunday. He plans to spend the summer the way he has spent almost every summer since 1988, performing to large crowds across the U.S. Not all audiences will be thrilled by what they see--especially if they expect a reprise of the ardent protest singer, the defiant electric-rocker, or any of Mr. Dylan's other incarnations.
Whataudiences will see is the best songwriter alive doing exactly what he wants. I've seen Bob Dylan three times over the past two years, each time as part of Willie Nelson's traveling Outlaw Music Festival.
I suspect he enjoys being on the road with another music legend who is even older than he is. Variety described the tour as "half of a living Mount Rushmore." A shameless crowd-pleaser Mr. Dylan is not. He mostly stays half-hidden behind his piano and doesn't allow venues to project close-up video images. He expects the audience to listen.
Even when you do listen, it often takes a minute to figure out which song the old master is playing. Ever since the 1970s, Mr. Dylan has challenged audiences by tinkering with the tempos and melodies of his tunes. He's not only being impish. He's challenging himself to reinvent each song in the moment, even songs he has played thousands of times.
I'm sure many fans would love to hear the old tunes performed closer to the way we first heard them--OK, I'll admit, I would enjoy that--but that's not what keeps Mr. Dylan out on the road year after year. He's not interested in playing singalong versions of his greatest hits. Instead, he's still chasing maximal freedom from musical constraints, even when those constraints are his own beautiful melodies.
Continue reading the entire piece here at the Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/opinion/free-expression/bob-dylan-does-it-on-his-own-terms-03290ed6?)
* * *
James B. Meigs is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a City Journal contributing editor.
* * *
Original text here: https://manhattan.institute/article/bob-dylan-does-it-on-his-own-terms
[Category: ThinkTank]
Common Cause Launches Public Interest Test for Next Attorney General Nominee
WASHINGTON, May 22 [Category: ThinkTank] -- Common Cause posted the following news release:
* * *
Common Cause Launches Public Interest Test for Next Attorney General Nominee
*
Common Cause is putting the White House and Congress on notice that the next U.S. Attorney General will need to return the Department of Justice (DOJ) back to serving the public interest and not the President's whim or face strong public opposition to the next nominee.
This is one of the very few times Common Cause opposed a cabinet-level nominee. Common Cause's one million plus members are demanding a return to independence,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 22 [Category: ThinkTank] -- Common Cause posted the following news release:
* * *
Common Cause Launches Public Interest Test for Next Attorney General Nominee
*
Common Cause is putting the White House and Congress on notice that the next U.S. Attorney General will need to return the Department of Justice (DOJ) back to serving the public interest and not the President's whim or face strong public opposition to the next nominee.
This is one of the very few times Common Cause opposed a cabinet-level nominee. Common Cause's one million plus members are demanding a return to independence,integrity and accountability for the DOJ after more than a year of DOJ acting as the President's personal law firm, rather than upholding the Constitution and the rule of law for all of us.
Under the organization's Public Interest Test, the next nominee will need to meet these key criteria : (1) Independence from the White House; (2) No weaponization of law enforcement; (3) Candor to courts and respect for court orders; (4) Defense of civil rights and constitutional limits on executive power; (5) Respect for Congress and the separation of powers; and (6) An unassailable ethics record and professional credibility. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, rumored to be doing an on-the-job interview for the permanent position, fails our Public Interest Test.
"Former Attorney General Bondi and now Acting Attorney General Blanche have turned DOJ into the President's vendetta machine and, instead of upholding our Constitution, they have actively helped the President undermine it." said Omar Noureldin, Senior Vice President of Policy & Litigation, Common Cause. "If the Trump administration moves forward with any of the current short list of rumored nominees, all of which fail our Public Interest Test, Common Cause will mobilize our one million members to block their nomination."
Current rumored candidates are Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Deputy Attorney General Harmeet Dillion, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, U.S. Pardon Attorney Ed Martin, and U.S. Attorney Jeanne Pirro. All five of them fail the Public Interest Test.
***
Original text here: https://www.commoncause.org/press/common-cause-launches-public-interest-test-for-next-attorney-general-nominee/
Center on Budget & Policy Priorities: House Bill to Make Blocking Federal Funds Easier Would Take Away Help People Need to Afford Rising Cost of Basics
WASHINGTON, May 22 -- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued the following commentary on May 21, 2026, by Nick Gwyn, senior fellow with the Government Affairs Team:
* * *
House Bill to Make Blocking Federal Funds Easier Would Take Away Help People Need to Afford Rising Cost of Basics
Ensuring that federal funding reaches eligible recipients, while preventing and addressing factual instances of fraud, is a critical part of good governance that has typically garnered bipartisan support.
Unfortunately, the Trump Administration is making it harder for eligible recipients to access basic
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 22 -- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued the following commentary on May 21, 2026, by Nick Gwyn, senior fellow with the Government Affairs Team:
* * *
House Bill to Make Blocking Federal Funds Easier Would Take Away Help People Need to Afford Rising Cost of Basics
Ensuring that federal funding reaches eligible recipients, while preventing and addressing factual instances of fraud, is a critical part of good governance that has typically garnered bipartisan support.
Unfortunately, the Trump Administration is making it harder for eligible recipients to access basicneeds programs and is complicating legitimate efforts to help ensure payments go to the right people. Many of the Administration's actions, instead of focusing on fraud, threaten to take away the help people need to afford essentials, like putting food on the table, seeing a doctor, or obtaining child care.
For example, just last week, the Administration suspended $1.3 billion in Medicaid payments to California, citing unsubstantiated concerns about fraud in the state's home care program. California officials suggested the move could harm almost 1 million elderly and disabled people who use the program to receive care in their homes.
It is in this light that Congress must evaluate legislation recently reported by the House Oversight Committee, HR 8464 (known as the Stopping Fraudulent Payments Act).
This legislation creates a new, broad, and subjective authority allowing federal agencies or the Secretary of the Treasury to block federal payments to individuals, nonprofit organizations, communities, and states. While the bill suggests this authority is narrowly related to preventing fraud, its language is broad and vague enough for this, or any other, administration to stop, delay, or condition payments for programs it opposes, or in states that it disfavors, using claims of misspending as a pretext to take away or hold up funding.
Indeed, the Trump Administration has already attempted or threatened to block federal funds that help people afford health care, food, child care, and other basic needs, claiming concerns about fraud, but often without providing evidence or misstating the facts.
HR 8464 Allows Considerable Discretion for Federal Agencies to Block Payments
HR 8464 would require federal agencies administering public assistance or benefit programs to "delay, condition or segment" federal payments if they have "sufficient reason to determine" the payment presents an "elevated" risk of fraud, or if the agency is directed by the Secretary of the Treasury to take such action based on the same criteria. This framework, which provides permanent authority for the current and any future administration, leaves considerable discretion to federal agencies and the Treasury Secretary to determine which payments to withhold.
For example, the Secretary of Health and Human Services could attempt to temporarily block federal Medicaid payments for particular services in certain states citing a rise in spending for that service, or a higher level than in other states, as "sufficient reason" to believe there is fraud, even if such spending was driven by changes in policy or circumstances. (The bill stipulates that an "increase in the volume of a payment amount" can be considered a "fraud risk indicator.") In fact, the Trump Administration has already suggested that increased Medicaid spending on home care services, such as helping older adults and people with disabilities with bathing, dressing, and eating, may be related to fraud when this broader trend actually reflects policy choices to prioritize home care over institutional care.
The legislation links its proposed authority to block payments to a current-law process for certifying the disbursement of federal funds, which are then provided through payment systems administered by the Treasury Department's Bureau of the Fiscal Service. This process applies to nearly all federal spending, including Medicare payments to health care providers and Social Security and Supplemental Security Income payments to elderly and disabled individuals. HR 8464 includes specific references to federal funds disbursed by a state or local government under "a State-administered and federally-funded program," presumably referring to Medicaid, SNAP, and other programs that states primarily administer while receiving federal funds for at least a portion of the program's cost.
The bill outlines that any actions taken under this authority are to be temporary, but it also provides some discretion to agency heads in determining corrective compliance. And the bill provides liability protection for any federal officer blocking federal payments under this new authority, making it that much harder to hold any official responsible for abusing their authority.
HR 8464 Would Further Enable Trump Administration to Block Critical Funding
The Trump Administration has already attempted to block federal funds for a variety of critical programs by making broad and unsubstantiated claims about fraud, citing inaccurate findings, or departing from statutory processes for addressing such concerns. Leaving the Trump Administration leeway to determine what is a sufficient reason to block federal payments is dangerous given its recent actions.
The courts have stepped in to prevent, at least temporarily, many of the Administration's most drastic actions to date. But if Congress were to pass legislation that provides explicit, new authority for federal agencies to withhold funds, the Trump Administration could be emboldened to be even more aggressive in attempting to take away funding for programs that help people afford the high cost of basic needs, like food and health care.
For example, in December 2025, the Department of Agriculture sent letters to Colorado and Minnesota threatening federal financial sanctions unless they immediately reevaluated the eligibility for all households receiving SNAP in certain counties - an increase in red tape and confusion that would likely have taken away food assistance from many eligible individuals. The courts blocked USDA from moving forward on this illegal demand, citing the agency's "sweeping, nonspecific, and unsupported accusations" and the harm to eligible families the recertifications might cause.
In January, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) took the unprecedented step of freezing roughly $10 billion in funding for families' child care, basic cash assistance, and other essential needs in five states led by Democratic governors. This action was illegal, unsupported by evidence (or even specific allegations), and harmful to families with low and moderate incomes. The courts blocked the Administration from proceeding with this freeze until litigation on the issue is concluded.
Also earlier this year, HHS announced two separate actions to hold up hundreds of millions of dollars in Medicaid funding from Minnesota, and shortly thereafter sent pre-enforcement letters to California, Florida, Maine, and New York. The HHS letter to New York justified its probe in part based on an egregious mistake the Trump Administration made when calculating the state's spending on personal care services under Medicaid.
The federal government should address factual instances of fraud, but that should not mean taking away vital benefits from eligible individuals. Unfortunately, HR 8464 would further enable and encourage the Administration to block vital assistance and services that people depend on, especially as the cost of food, fuel, housing, and health care continue to rise.
* * *
Nick Gwyn is a Senior Fellow on the Government Affairs team.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cbpp.org/blog/house-bill-to-make-blocking-federal-funds-easier-would-take-away-help-people-need-to-afford
[Category: ThinkTank]
Buckeye Institute: Ohio Job Market Remains Steady in April
COLUMBUS, Ohio, May 22 [Category: Think Tank] -- The Buckeye Institute, an independent research and educational institution that says its mission is to advance free-market public policy, posted the following news release:
* * *
The Buckeye Institute: Ohio Job Market Remains Steady in April
Rea S. Hederman Jr., executive director of the Economic Research Center and vice president of policy at The Buckeye Institute, commented on the April 2026 jobs report from the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services.
"In April, Ohio's unemployment rate fell from 4.1 to 3.9 percent, significantly better
... Show Full Article
COLUMBUS, Ohio, May 22 [Category: Think Tank] -- The Buckeye Institute, an independent research and educational institution that says its mission is to advance free-market public policy, posted the following news release:
* * *
The Buckeye Institute: Ohio Job Market Remains Steady in April
Rea S. Hederman Jr., executive director of the Economic Research Center and vice president of policy at The Buckeye Institute, commented on the April 2026 jobs report from the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services.
"In April, Ohio's unemployment rate fell from 4.1 to 3.9 percent, significantly betterthan the national average. Although-as reflected in the slide in Ohio's labor force participation rate-the drop in unemployment is primarily due to unemployed Ohioans no longer looking for work, and mirrors a similar decline seen in the national labor force participation rate.
"Even though more Ohioans exited the job market in April, 7,100 new private-sector jobs were added, more than offsetting the slight downward revision in the number of private-sector jobs added in March.
"Ohio's labor force participation rate has gradually declined over the last 20 years. While numerous factors contribute to this decline, it is impossible to deny that the expansion of the social welfare state disincentivizes work. New federal requirements for programs like Medicaid and SNAP, along with recent reports of fraud and lax oversight, show that Ohio needs to reform and fix its safety-net programs to incentivize work and encourage more workers-particularly healthy adults-to enter the job market. Getting more Ohioans back to work can increase incomes, improve the job market overall, and save taxpayer dollars -a win, win, win for Ohio."
***
Original text here: https://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/research/detail/the-buckeye-institute-ohio-job-market-remains-steady-in-april
American Action Forum Issues Commentary: Examining the Costs of a Federal Gas Tax Holiday
WASHINGTON, May 22 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on May 21, 2026, by Fiscal Policy Director Jordan Haring:
* * *
Examining the Costs of a Federal Gas Tax Holiday
Executive Summary
* Rising gas prices due to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East have prompted calls for a federal gas tax holiday; President Trump has expressed support for suspending the gas tax temporarily and both Republicans and Democrats in Congress have introduced legislation to do so.
* Any gas tax holiday would impose costs on the federal budget; a one-month suspension would cost $3.4 billion,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 22 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on May 21, 2026, by Fiscal Policy Director Jordan Haring:
* * *
Examining the Costs of a Federal Gas Tax Holiday
Executive Summary
* Rising gas prices due to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East have prompted calls for a federal gas tax holiday; President Trump has expressed support for suspending the gas tax temporarily and both Republicans and Democrats in Congress have introduced legislation to do so.
* Any gas tax holiday would impose costs on the federal budget; a one-month suspension would cost $3.4 billion,a three-month suspension $10.3 billion, and a full-year suspension $41.0 billion.
* Depending on the length, a gas tax holiday could push insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund up by several weeks to 18 months.
* The consumer benefits of a gas tax suspension would be immediate, but modest; for example, a household that uses 50 gallons of gasoline per month would save $9.20 from a one-month suspension, $27.60 from a three-month suspension, and $110.40 from a full-year suspension.
* A federal gas tax holiday could create broader economic distortions, including undermining economic incentives for fuel efficiency and energy conservation; moreover, a gas tax holiday is an ineffective anti-inflation strategy, since fuel prices are primarily driven by crude oil markets, geopolitical conditions, and refining capacity constraints rather than federal tax levels.
Introduction
Rising gas prices due to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East have prompted calls for a federal gas tax holiday. As of May 18, the average gas price is $4.62 per gallon - a $1.55 (50-percent increase) from February 23. President Trump has expressed support for suspending the gas tax temporarily and both Republicans and Democrats in Congress have introduced legislation to do so.
Any gas tax holiday would impose costs on the federal budget. A one-month suspension would cost $3.4 billion, a three-month suspension $10.3 billion, and a full-year suspension $41.0 billion. Depending on the length, a gas tax holiday could push the projected insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) up by several weeks to 18 months.
For consumers, the benefits of a gas tax suspension would be immediate, but modest. A household that uses 50 gallons of gasoline per month would save $9.20 from a one-month suspension, $27.60 from a three-month suspension, and $110.40 from a full-year suspension.
Additionally, a federal gas tax holiday could create broader economic distortions, including undermining economic incentives for fuel efficiency and energy conservation. Moreover, a gas tax holiday is an ineffective anti-inflation strategy, since fuel prices are primarily driven by crude oil markets, geopolitical conditions, and refining capacity constraints rather than federal tax levels.
This insight examines the costs of a federal gas tax holiday.
The Mechanics of the Gas Tax
The federal government imposes excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel to finance transportation spending. The taxes are charged per gallon of fuel sold, rather than as a percentage of the purchase price of a gallon of fuel. The federal gas tax is currently 18.4 cents-per-gallon for gasoline and gasohol and 24.4 cents-per-gallon for diesel fuel. 18.3 cents of the gas tax and 24.3 cents of the diesel tax are deposited into the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) and the remaining 0.1 cent from each tax goes to the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund. The federal gas and diesel tax rates have remained unchanged since 1993, even though inflation and improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency have reduced the purchasing power of the revenue collected from the taxes.
States impose additional excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel. The rates vary across states. California imposes the nation's highest gas tax rate of 70.9 cents-per-gallon, while Alaska imposes the lowest rate of 9 cents-per-gallon. Diesel tax rates are a bit higher, with California imposing the highest diesel tax of 87.3 cents-per-gallon and Alaska imposing the lowest of 9 cents-per-gallon.
A small number of states have suspended or reduced their gas and diesel taxes in response to higher fuel prices due to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. In March, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed legislation into law that suspended the state's 33.3 cents-per-gallon gas tax and 37.3 cents-per-gallon diesel tax through May 19. Governor Kemp has signed an executive order to continue the state's gas tax holiday through June 3. In April, Indiana Governor Mike Braun signed an executive order that suspended the state's 7 percent usage tax on fuel for 30 days. Governor Braun has signed another executive order that extends the suspension of Indiana's usage tax on fuel for another 30 days and includes a suspension of the state's 36 cents-per-gallon gas tax. In Kentucky, Governor Andy Beshear authorized a 10-cent reduction in the state's 26.4 cents-per-gallon gas tax and froze a scheduled rate increase to 27 cents-per-gallon that was to take effect in July. Eight other states have debated or introduced proposals for some form of a gas tax holiday but have not yet enacted any policy change.
The actions at the state level have prompted federal lawmakers to advocate for a federal gas tax holiday.
Growing Momentum for a Federal Gas Tax Holiday
President Trump has expressed support for a gas tax holiday, saying "...we're going to take off the gas tax for a period of time, and when gas goes down, we'll let it phase back in." Congress will need to pass legislation to suspend the gas tax; the president can't do it through executive order. Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers have introduced legislation to suspend the federal gas tax. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) introduced the Gas Tax Suspension Act, which would suspend the 18.4 cents-per-gallon gas tax and 24.4 cents-per-gallon diesel tax for 90 days after enactment. The bill would give the president the authority to extend the suspension for another 90 days if he determines that economic conditions merit an extension. In March, Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Mark Kelly (D-AZ) introduced the Gas Prices Relief Act of 2026, which would suspend the 18.4 cents-per-gallon gas tax through October 1, 2026. The bill would require the Treasury Department to transfer funds from the general fund to the HTF and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund in amounts equal to the lost revenue from the suspension. Representative Chris Pappas (D-NH) introduced a companion bill in the House. Representatives Josh Harber (D-CA) and Kim Schrier (D-WA) introduced a similar bill in April that would suspend the gas tax for a longer period, through January 1, 2027.
The Budgetary Impact of a Gas Tax Holiday
The impact of a gas tax holiday on the federal budget would vary depending on the duration of the policy. Even a relatively short suspension would impose costs on the federal budget and the HTF. The most direct cost would be the immediate reduction in federal revenues. The federal gas and diesel taxes currently generate about $38 billion in federal revenue annually, which is deposited into the HTF to finance transportation spending. Suspending the gas tax, even temporarily, would eliminate billions of dollars in federal receipts at a time when the federal government is running massive budget deficits.
Without accounting for behavioral effects, a one-month suspension of the federal gas tax beginning June 1 would reduce federal revenues by $2.4 billion. A three-month suspension would reduce receipts by $7.3 billion, and a four-month suspension would reduce revenues by $9.7 billion. A prolonged gas tax holiday would generate greater revenue losses. A six-month suspension would reduce federal revenues by $14.5 billion and a full-year suspension would reduce receipts by $29.0 billion.
* * *
Table: Budgetary Impact of Various Gas Tax Holiday Scenarios
* * *
Because federal transportation spending would continue despite the suspension, the lost HTF revenue would likely be replaced through a general revenue transfer (as some legislation specifically requires). In practical terms, this means financing transportation spending through deficit financing, which would increase the federal government's net interest payments on its $39.1 trillion debt.
After including the impact on interest payments, a one-month gas tax holiday would cost $3.4 billion, a three-month suspension would cost $10.3 billion, and a four-month suspension would cost $13.7 billion. A six-month suspension would cost $20.5 billion and a full-year suspension would cost $41.0 billion.
The Impact of a Federal Gas Tax Holiday on the Highway Trust Fund
The HTF is the primary mechanism for financing most federal spending on highways and mass transit. The trust fund was designed around a user-pay principle; that is, consumers who buy fuel for their vehicles or utilize the mass transit system contribute directly to the fund's maintenance through federal fuel taxes. Receipts from federal gas and diesel taxes currently comprise 82 percent of the HTF's revenue stream.
The financial condition of the HTF has steadily declined over the past several decades. The HTF has run an annual deficit since fiscal year (FY) 2006 and the Congressional Budget Office estimates it will be insolvent by the end of FY 2028. Any gas tax holiday would accelerate the depletion of the HTF.
A one-month suspension would accelerate depletion by several weeks to two months. A three-month holiday would push insolvency up by three to six months, while a four-month suspension would move depletion up by five to eight months. A six-month holiday would push HTF insolvency up by eight months to a year and a full-year suspension would push depletion up by a year to 18 months. Of course, these are just estimates and the actual impact of any gas tax holiday on HTF insolvency will depend on monthly outlay schedules, demand for fuel, and whether Congress decides to transfer more general revenue into the trust fund.
The Impact of a Federal Gas Tax Holiday on Consumers
A federal gas tax holiday would provide consumers with immediate, but modest, relief from high gas prices. In theory, the full benefit of the suspension would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower gas prices, thus reducing household transportation expenditures and slightly easing inflationary pressures. Households with long commutes or high gas consumption, particularly in rural and suburban areas, could see meaningful savings. Businesses' transportation and shipping costs could decrease, potentially moderating price increases for consumer goods and services.
To illustrate the potential savings, let's assume a household uses 50 gallons of gasoline per month. A one-month suspension of the 18.4 cents-per-gallon federal gas tax would generate $9.20 of savings, a three-month suspension $27.60 of savings, and a four-month suspension $36.80 of savings. A longer gas tax holiday of six months or one year would yield $55.20 and $110.40 of savings, respectively. A household that uses 50 gallons of diesel per month would enjoy slightly greater savings since the federal diesel tax rate is six cents-per-gallon higher.
In practicality, however, the overall benefit to consumers would likely be limited by structural factors within energy markets. Gas prices are primarily driven by global crude oil prices, refining capacity, and regional supply constraints. That means fluctuations in oil markets can easily outweigh the savings a gas tax holiday would generate. Moreover, the full benefit of tax reductions is not always passed on to consumers; refiners, wholesalers, and retailers may retain a portion of the benefit, particularly during periods of strong demand or constrained supply.
Furthermore, the distributional effects of a gas tax holiday would be uneven across income groups and geographic regions. Households that drive more frequently or own less fuel-efficient vehicles would realize larger absolute savings, while households that rely primarily on public transportation or do not own vehicles would receive little direct benefit. Because higher-income households generally consume more gasoline than lower-income households, a federal gas tax holiday may disproportionately benefit middle- and higher-income consumers in dollar terms. This led to the view that a gas tax holiday is a relatively inefficient mechanism for broad-based economic relief compared to more targeted measures such as direct rebates, expanded tax credits, or public transit subsidies.
Additionally, a prolonged gas tax holiday that doesn't replace lost HTF revenue through a general revenue transfer or other means could weaken the long-term sustainability of federal transportation spending. Deferred infrastructure maintenance may impose indirect costs on consumers through increased vehicle repair expenses, traffic congestion, and reduced transportation efficiency.
The Impact of a Federal Gas Tax Holiday on the Economy
A federal gas tax holiday could create broader economic distortions. By artificially lowering fuel prices, for example, the policy could encourage increased gasoline consumption. Higher demand for fuel could place additional pressure on already constrained energy markets.
It could also undermine economic incentives for fuel efficiency and energy conservation. Consumers are unlikely to reduce discretionary driving, purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles, or shift to alternative modes of transportation when gas prices are artificially reduced. This could weaken market signals that would otherwise encourage long-term energy conservation and efficiency improvements.
Additionally, a gas tax holiday could worsen traffic congestion and increase negative externalities such as road wear, air pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. These externalities carry measurable economic costs through health care expenditures, environmental damage, lost productivity, and infrastructure deterioration.
From a macroeconomic perspective, a gas tax holiday is also an ineffective anti-inflation strategy. Gasoline prices are primarily driven by crude oil markets, geopolitical conditions, and refining capacity constraints rather than federal taxation levels. While suspending the gas tax may temporarily reduce headline inflation statistics, the effect is generally small and short-lived. The policy doesn't address the underlying causes of inflation and may even modestly increase aggregate demand at a time when policymakers are attempting to stabilize prices.
Conclusion
While a federal gas tax holiday would offer immediate, if minimal, consumer relief at the pump, its fiscal and economic costs outweigh its temporary benefits. Any gas tax suspension would weaken federal transportation financing, placing additional strain on the already shaky HTF. Consumers would receive limited and uneven savings, with higher-income households receiving a disproportionate share of the benefits. The policy would create broader economic inefficiencies by encouraging greater fuel consumption, distorting energy markets, and undermining environmental and transportation policy objectives. Because gasoline prices are largely driven by global energy markets, suspending the federal gas tax does little to address the underlying causes of inflation or high fuel prices.
Ultimately, a federal gas tax holiday represents a politically appealing but economically inefficient policy response. Policymakers seeking to provide meaningful relief to households would be better served by targeted assistance measures that preserve infrastructure funding, maintain fiscal responsibility, and support long-term economic and energy stability.
* * *
Jordan Haring is the Director of Fiscal Policy at the American Action Forum
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/examining-the-costs-of-a-federal-gas-tax-holiday/
[Category: Think Tank]
America First Policy Institute: DOJ Sends Clear Message to Fraudsters - Americans Are Not Your Piggybank
WASHINGTON, May 22 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on May 21, 2026:
* * *
DOJ Sends Clear Message to Fraudsters: Americans Are Not Your Piggybank
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) released the following statement from Brett Tolman, Chair for Law and Justice, in response to news that the U.S. Department of Justice has charged 15 individuals over more than $90 million in fraud in Minnesota:
"We applaud the DOJ for launching one of the most robust anti-fraud enforcement efforts in generations.
The criminal charges announced in Minnesota expose
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 22 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on May 21, 2026:
* * *
DOJ Sends Clear Message to Fraudsters: Americans Are Not Your Piggybank
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) released the following statement from Brett Tolman, Chair for Law and Justice, in response to news that the U.S. Department of Justice has charged 15 individuals over more than $90 million in fraud in Minnesota:
"We applaud the DOJ for launching one of the most robust anti-fraud enforcement efforts in generations.
The criminal charges announced in Minnesota exposea shocking abuse of taxpayer funds meant to serve Americans in need, enabled by years of a disgraceful lack of oversight and willful negligence by America-last leaders.
This aggressive action sends a clear message: Stealing from the American people will not be tolerated.
Actions like these by the Trump administration will not only put criminals behind bars but also will help restore public trust by ensuring that programs like Medicaid serve the people they are intended to help, not thieves looking to exploit the system."
Brett Tolman is available for interview. Click here (https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/contact/comms-team) to schedule.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/doj-suit-sends-clear-message-to-fraudsters-americans-are-not-your-piggybank
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI Takes Further Legal Action Against CA Attorney General, on Behalf of El Cajon
WASHINGTON, May 22 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on May 21, 2026:
* * *
AFPI takes further legal action against CA Attorney General, on behalf of El Cajon
Today, the America First Policy Institute filed a petition for preliminary injunction on behalf of the city of El Cajon in its lawsuit against the California attorney general. The preliminary injunction was filed to stop the constant damage sanctuary state policies are having on the community and the compromising position that law enforcement is put in each day.
The following statement is made by
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 22 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on May 21, 2026:
* * *
AFPI takes further legal action against CA Attorney General, on behalf of El Cajon
Today, the America First Policy Institute filed a petition for preliminary injunction on behalf of the city of El Cajon in its lawsuit against the California attorney general. The preliminary injunction was filed to stop the constant damage sanctuary state policies are having on the community and the compromising position that law enforcement is put in each day.
The following statement is made byAFPI's Vice Chair of Litigation Richard Lawson:
"California has created a legal quagmire for law enforcement officers simply trying to follow the law and protect their communities. When the city of El Cajon asked the California Attorney General if it would violate state law to use information provided by the federal government to identify a potential child victim of human trafficking, it was told 'probably.'
This confusion stems from California's unlawful desire to bolster its economy with the fruits of illegal labor, as 1 in 10 workers are believed to be residing in the state unlawfully. In full violation of federal criminal law, California encourages illegal immigrants to settle in the state by providing them with benefits like in-state state tuition and driver's licenses.
These sanctuary policies also impose restrictions on law enforcement cooperation with immigration officials, which is why the Attorney General suggested that officers should not respond when ICE has information on potential child trafficking.
California's sanctuary policies don't just violate common sense, they are knowing violations of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. No officer should be placed in a position of having to decide between following state law or federal criminal law."
The full text of the preliminary injunction can be found HERE (https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/assets/uploads/files/2026.05.20_Preliminary_Injunction__Filed__.pdf).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-takes-further-legal-action-against-ca-attorney-general-on-behalf-of-el-cajon
[Category: ThinkTank]
