Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Jamestown Foundation Issues Commentary: Putin's Moves Against Internet Alienate Russians
WASHINGTON, April 3 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on April 2, 2026, by Paul Goble, specialist on ethnic and religious questions in Eurasia, in its Eurasia Daily Monitor:* * *
Putin's Moves Against Internet Alienate Russians
Executive Summary:
* Russian President Vladimir Putin's moves against Telegram channels and the Internet more generally have alienated many Russians, angered regime allies in business and government who depend on the web, and undercut the Kremlin leader's own goals.
* This alienation and anger have not led to massive protests because the ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 3 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on April 2, 2026, by Paul Goble, specialist on ethnic and religious questions in Eurasia, in its Eurasia Daily Monitor: * * * Putin's Moves Against Internet Alienate Russians Executive Summary: * Russian President Vladimir Putin's moves against Telegram channels and the Internet more generally have alienated many Russians, angered regime allies in business and government who depend on the web, and undercut the Kremlin leader's own goals. * This alienation and anger have not led to massive protests because theregime has shown it is ready to repress anyone who takes part and because of the widespread sense among Russians that nothing they do will change Kremlin policies.
* This trend leaves Putin with a shallower and softer reserve of support. In the event of some future shock, he might have to rely on repression alone--a conclusion some in the Kremlin already share--thus limiting Putin's options in the future.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has been making moves against Telegram channels and restricting the Internet in recent months, especially in the last few weeks (see EDM, March 19; Important Stories, March 30). These moves have alienated many Russians and angered regime allies in business and government who depend on the web and who--in a sign of opposition--have not come to the defense of these Kremlin policies (Kommersant, March 11; Telegram/@agentstvonews, March 23; Verstka, March 27; Russian Field, accessed April 2). A new poll confirms that Russians are overwhelmingly opposed to many of the steps Putin has already taken (Novaya Gazeta, April 1 [1], [2]). In addition and likely even more important, many in the Kremlin appear to recognize that moves against the Internet are increasingly undercutting the Kremlin leader's own goals both in the short term regarding prosecuting the war against Ukraine and in longer term regarding ensuring that his regime can continue to reach the population via the media and boosting the birthrate (Novaya Gazeta, March 20; Yesli Byt' Tochnym, March 19; Noviye Izvestiya, March 30, 2026). So far, this alienation and anger have not led to massive protests. When these have been attempted, the regime has responded harshly (7x7 Gorizontal'naya Rossiya; Agenstvo; Radio Svoboda, March 30). There is also a still-widespread sense among Russians that nothing they do will change the Kremlin's direction (Novaya Gazeta, March 17). Because this trend leaves Putin with a shallower and softer reserve of support, he might have to rely solely on repression in the event of a future shock. This situation could limit his freedom of action in Russia by increasing pressure on him from within the elite to change policy (Meduza, March 26, 30).
Putin's attack against internet access now involves far more targets than just Telegram channels. He fears that the Internet could be used to mobilize opposition to him, as opposition groups in other countries with authoritarian rulers have done. Close observers of the Russian scene suggest that the Kremlin leader has good reason for such fears. Putin's war against Ukraine has dragged on and increasingly come home via caskets and drone attacks. Because of this, ever more Russians who had been prepared to give lip service to the Kremlin are now reexamining their positions and beginning to actively listen to opposition groups (Vot Tak, March 13). As a result, the Kremlin began moving against the Internet in its typical step-by-step way, hoping that each restriction or ban would make additional ones more acceptable to the Russian population and Russian elites and draw less criticism.
To date, Putin and the Russian security services' plans have not worked as they had hoped. Polling data, almost certainly limited because of what initial polls found, has shown that Putin's attacks on the Internet are widely unpopular among the population, especially among the politically sensitive urban youth (Meduza, March 26; Russian Field, accessed April 2 [1], [2]). Putin and his regime may not care all that much about this still inchoate movement, but the Kremlin has launched a media campaign to justify these actions in terms of national security and even mental health (RG.RU, November 17, 2025; Vedomosti, March 24). Opposition from other elite groups and concerns about how internet restrictions are affecting the Kremlin's own goals, however, are another matter altogether.
Business, political, and military leaders are also opposed. Business leaders oppose internet shutdowns because they are costing them money; political leaders have grown accustomed to using the Internet as a tool in their daily work; and military leaders have been using Telegram channels during Putin's war against Ukraine. Business outlets have been explicit about just how much money internet restrictions are costing them (Kommersant, March 11). Political elites have acknowledged how much they rely on the Internet to do their jobs and have not spoken out in any numbers in favor of restrictions, as one would have expected (Meduza, March 26). Finally, military commanders in Ukraine have also complained, albeit via backchannels rather than public declarations, because they have been using the Internet in their work as well (Carnegie Politika, February 23; Novaya Gazeta, March 16; The Kyiv Independent, March 24).
Putin--with his security officer origins--and others with similar backgrounds and responsibilities may be willing to ignore such opposition. When they cannot, they may take measures to suppress it. Thus far, they demonstrated this with their crushing of a protest against internet restrictions on March 29 in several Russian cities (7x7 Gorizontal'naya Rossiya; Agenstvo; Radio Svoboda, March 30). They also appear willing to ignore business and military complaints about what such restrictions or shutdowns mean for those groups, at least for the time being (Meduza, March 26). The Kremlin leader and his team, however, cannot easily ignore how restricting or blocking internet channels is negatively affecting their own goals. Three cases have already emerged. First, preliminary figures show that Moscow's decision to block Telegram channels is costing pro-Kremlin media outlets more viewers than it is taking away from opposition ones. This is exactly the opposite of what Putin obviously wants and is making it more difficult to deliver signals to Russian television outlets far from Moscow (Novaya Gazeta, March 21; Kommersant, March 30).
Second, senior officials in the Putin regime, especially in federal subjects far from Moscow, are now so dependent on the Internet that restricting it or blocking it entirely will keep them from implementing the will of the center. Some of these officials are already ignoring Kremlin injunctions against using the Internet because of these needs, and it is highly unlikely that everyone in the Kremlin will want to fragment the power vertical, even in the name of saving it (Meduza, March 26). Third--which could be the straw that broke the camel's back--there is mounting evidence that restricting the Internet is likely to send Russian birth rates plummeting further. This would kill off any chance that Putin could slow, let alone reverse, their current decline. Where high-speed Internet is available in homes, researchers say, birth rates are higher than where it is not because such connections allow people to work at home and supervise children. If Moscow does seriously restrict the Internet, fewer people will be able to work from home, and the number willing to have children will drop (Yesli Byt' Tochnym, March 19). There are, of course, workarounds, such as providing more preschool facilities, but these are expensive and unlikely to be considered by the cash-strapped Russian government.
The Meduza news agency reports that these considerations, along with polls showing the low popularity of internet restrictions among regular Russians and business elites, may be driving down support for the regime. They are already prompting a portion of the Presidential Administration to resist security service demands to shut down the Internet (Meduza, March 26). This resistance so far slowed moves against the Internet and could kill it altogether if polls continue to show declining support for Putin and his war. That could happen even more quickly if Putin concludes that anger about what he is doing to the Internet may cost his United Russia Party support in the upcoming Duma elections (Svobodnaya Pressa, March 31). All this could generate more real resistance to Putin and restrict his options--exactly the opposite outcomes that led him to start this process in the first place.
* * *
Paul Goble is a longtime specialist on ethnic and religious questions in Eurasia.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/putins-moves-against-internet-alienate-russians-2/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center for American Progress: Trump Administration Gutted DHS Training Standards, Creating Dangerous Conditions in American Communities
WASHINGTON, April 3 (TNSrep) -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release on April 2, 2026:* * *
Trump Administration Gutted DHS Training Standards, Creating Dangerous Conditions in American Communities
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has drastically lowered recruitment, hiring, and training standards for federal immigration agents, prioritizing personnel hiring over public safety and constitutional law.
Following the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which allocated $30 billion for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) hiring alone, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 3 (TNSrep) -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release on April 2, 2026: * * * Trump Administration Gutted DHS Training Standards, Creating Dangerous Conditions in American Communities The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has drastically lowered recruitment, hiring, and training standards for federal immigration agents, prioritizing personnel hiring over public safety and constitutional law. Following the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which allocated $30 billion for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) hiring alone,ICE has more than doubled its force from 10,000 to more than 22,000 agents in just six months. However, this rapid expansion has come at a steep cost: DHS has lowered the minimum age for agents to 18, slashed 240 hours from the ICE training program--a 41 percent reduction--and its sloppy vetting processes and recruitment strategies have resulted in the hiring of agents with ties to extremist groups. Officers are also being instructed to enter homes without a warrant in violation of the Constitution. All of this is inconsistent with requirements at nearly every other federal law enforcement agency and many state and local law enforcement agencies, which have higher standards.
A new report (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/4-strategies-to-improve-ice-and-cbp-recruiting-hiring-and-training-using-state-and-local-best-practices/) from the Center for American Progress outlines four evidence-based strategies that Congress and DHS must adopt to restore safety and professionalism:
1. Improve use-of-force training and ensure accountability for violations.
2. Restrict dangerous vehicle pursuits and shootings.
3. Strengthen candidate recruitment, screening, and hiring practices.
4. Restore the age minimum to 21 years old.
"The Trump administration is flooding U.S. streets with woefully unprepared agents who are being taught to bypass the Constitution," said Nick Wilson, senior director for Public Safety at CAP and author of the report. "By gutting the very training that ensures agents can fulfill their roles safely and lawfully, DHS is creating a powder keg in cities across the country. We are seeing the results in real time: more excessive force, dangerous vehicle pursuits, and a total lack of accountability. Congress must step in to provide the oversight necessary to restore law and order."
Read the report: "4 Strategies To Improve ICE and CBP Recruiting, Hiring, and Training Using State and Local Best Practices" (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/4-strategies-to-improve-ice-and-cbp-recruiting-hiring-and-training-using-state-and-local-best-practices/) by Nick Wilson and Allie Preston
Read the fact sheet: "Fact Sheet: Mandating 21st Century Policing Standards for Federal Immigration Enforcement" (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/fact-sheet-mandating-21st-century-policing-standards-for-federal-immigration-enforcement/) by Nick Wilson and Allie Preston
For more information on this topic or to speak with an expert, please contact Rafael Medina at rmedina@americanprogress.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release-trump-administration-gutted-dhs-training-standards-creating-dangerous-conditions-in-american-communities/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center Posts Commentary: Financialization of College Sports and the Meaning of a College Education
WASHINGTON, April 3 -- The Capital Research Center posted the following commentary on April 2, 2026, by Daniel P. Schmidt, former vice president for program of the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, to the Giving Review:* * *
The financialization of college sports and the meaning of a college education
The question is not whether student-athletes should benefit from the value they create. It is whether universities can sustain a coherent educational mission while participating in systems increasingly governed by market logic.
* * *
Last weekend, the Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 3 -- The Capital Research Center posted the following commentary on April 2, 2026, by Daniel P. Schmidt, former vice president for program of the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, to the Giving Review: * * * The financialization of college sports and the meaning of a college education The question is not whether student-athletes should benefit from the value they create. It is whether universities can sustain a coherent educational mission while participating in systems increasingly governed by market logic. * * * Last weekend, the Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketballteam soundly defeated the Iowa Hawkeyes to advance to the 2026 NCAA Final Four and have a shot at becoming national champions. While the Illini have competed in the Final Four six times since 1949, most recently in 2005, they have never captured the title.
The team from America's heartland--which features what many have called the "Balkan Five," including players from Croatia, Montenegro, and Serbia--reflects a broader transformation in college sports: its financialization. Since 2021, and with expansion of it since then, college sports' "Name, Image, and Likeness" (NIL) method of compensating athletes allows colleges to offer what can be really good money and great public exposure from endorsements, sponsorships, and other uses of their personal brand. As well, it provides what can be a much-better pipeline to a professional career--in this case, in the NBA.
That's a new value proposition, and like so many other universities, Illinois has leaned into it aggressively--and in its case, so far successfully, if measured by this year's tournament's on-court performance. Illinois' is not the richest NIL program, but it is among the more adaptive and innovative in how it's used NIL to build a roster. (Compare it to Northwestern's.)
Essentially, NIL has introduced market dynamics into college sports by permitting athletes to be compensated--as professionals are and in some rare cases, at their level--while still competing in college. Its advent has brought a measure of chaos to higher education's Departments of Athletics--but, more important, it has extended well beyond them, landing on the desks of officials in Admissions, Student Life, Development and Advancement, Legal Affairs, Academic Affairs, and ultimately, the Office of the President.
The heart of the matter is bigger than the efficient management of personnel, policies, and finances, however. It raises more-fundamental questions: What is the institution's purpose? Its primary meaning and mission?
Traditionally, that mission has been to provide instruction and related opportunities that develop a mature understanding of what it means to be an educated citizen--someone able to contribute to the well-being of family, friends, and the civic health of the community in which they live.
We have seen that mission diminished, if even only gradually, by the attention paid--at the institutions' own behest--to formulate and then manage its political, economic, and cultural postures in the public arena. Now, further attention is required on their part to respond to popular, policymaking, and philanthropic reactions against these postures and their effects.
In fact, just as college athletics is now operating more explicitly within a financialized, market-driven framework, philanthropy too has, in some contexts, evolved from an expression of civic trust into a more-strategic, metrics-driven, and at times transactional enterprise.
In the case of higher ed, NIL "calls the question" about purpose and mission and what's happening to them, bringing attention to it from those who probably wouldn't otherwise care so much. In the cases of both higher ed and philanthropy, the logic of the market--valuation, return, competition for scarce resources--may be beginning to shape decisions that were once guided more fully by educational or civic purposes. The question is not whether such forces can be managed, but whether they subtly reorder priorities over time.
Tax-incentivized philanthropic support from private foundations and donations from individuals play an important role in sustaining higher-ed teaching and research, student life, facilities, and athletics. According to the Council for Advancement and Support of Education, total philanthropic giving to colleges and universities reached $61.5 billion in fiscal-year 2024. Foundations contributed roughly one-third of that total, or about $20 billion.
Approximately 43.6% of foundation funding supported research, 28.1% supported academic divisions, and 12.8% supported athletics in FY2024. About 42.5% of foundation support originated from personal and family foundations. Donor-advised funds accounted for $6.5 billion in 2024 giving.
Over time, and with the development of common-sense solutions by those in positions of responsibility, it is possible that both higher ed and philanthropy will right themselves. For now, take NIL and its early returns as an opportunity for continued reflection. What begins as a set of pragmatic adjustments can, over time, become a redefinition of purpose, an alteration in underlying meaning and mission.
The question is not whether student-athletes should benefit from the value they create. It is whether universities can sustain a coherent educational mission while participating in systems increasingly governed by market logic. That question sits not only with athletic departments, but with the entire college or university of which they are a part. It also sits with those who support them, who should perhaps also ask it of their own giving institutions and mechanisms.
* * *
Daniel P. Schmidt retired as the vice president for program of The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation in Milwaukee in 2017.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/financialization-of-college-sports/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center Issues Commentary: Why a Humanoid Teacher is Still Less Scary Than an Activist Teacher
WASHINGTON, April 3 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary by senior fellow Kali Fontanilla:* * *
Why a humanoid teacher is still less scary than an activist teacher
If the choice is between a politically neutral machine that teaches reading, writing, and math, or a system increasingly dominated by activists who see your child as a project for social revolution, do not be surprised if some parents start saying: "Bring on the robot."
*
Imagine a classroom full of students sitting at their desks. The door slides open, and in rolls a sleek, polished robot programmed with ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 3 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary by senior fellow Kali Fontanilla: * * * Why a humanoid teacher is still less scary than an activist teacher If the choice is between a politically neutral machine that teaches reading, writing, and math, or a system increasingly dominated by activists who see your child as a project for social revolution, do not be surprised if some parents start saying: "Bring on the robot." * Imagine a classroom full of students sitting at their desks. The door slides open, and in rolls a sleek, polished robot programmed withan eerily pleasant voice: "Good morning, children. Today we are learning fractions." On the negative side, we're losing human interaction, and the scene is like something out of a dystopian, barely watchable Disney-produced Star Wars reboot. But on the plus side, the robot does not have any strange piercings, and it's not wearing a "Women's March" T-shirt. It is not here to process its "robot privilege" or lament about systemic oppression in mathematics. So I'd say all things considered, we're already off to a better start than a disturbing number of classrooms in California.
First Lady Melania Trump recently stepped out alongside a Figure 03 Humanoid robot at an AI Education Summit. The American-made robot, produced by Figure AI, greeted attendees with full autonomy. This wasn't some tech geek behind a curtain with a remote control, according to the developer; real-time AI powered this robot. The First Lady described a future where "very soon artificial intelligence will move from our mobile phones to humanoids that deliver utility," connecting it to the classroom, where robots could potentially deliver personalized education based on a child's learning speed and "emotional state." In the teaching world, we call this differentiation, which is often impossible in a packed classroom of varied skill levels. In other words: practical support that actually frees teachers up to focus on teaching instead of endless administrative bloat.
And right on cue, here comes Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, to complain about the entire concept. During a discussion on AI, she claimed, "What she did yesterday was every parent's nightmare," adding, "This is exactly what Big Tech wants to create: a sense of a society that is being led by and taught by robots, displacing every bit of all of who we are, starting with education."
For many parents, the real nightmare is not a robot helping with math homework. The real nightmare is discovering that their child has been secretly transitioned at school without their knowledge or consent. And let's not pretend that Weingarten's objections were solely about principle. If this exact same concept were rolled out with Michelle Obama at the helm, my guess is that the union would be posting on X, celebrating the "potential of equitable AI learning robots."
A basic AI-powered instructor, even in its early stages, already has a few clear advantages over the modern, activist-leaning classroom: A robot is not going to tell your child that they are inherently an "oppressor" or a "victim" because of their skin color. A robot is not going to encourage your daughter to question her gender identity after a bad day at school. A robot is not going to turn a history lesson into a therapy session about America's alleged irredeemable sins.
Now, to be clear, the idea of robots in classrooms is creepy. Imagine every teacher having a robotic assistant monitoring "off-task behavior" or fracturing a human skull, literally. In November, Figure AI was sued by its former head of product safety, who alleged he was fired after warning that these robots were powerful enough to break a bone. Okay, so that is scary. But here is the problem for the unions: it is still just as unsettling as what parents have already discovered is happening behind closed doors in our schools.
We are not talking about what-ifs and robot science fiction; we are talking about real-life documented cases of social engineering. Take the case out of Spreckels, California. A mother, Jessica Konen, had to file a lawsuit against the school district after staff began using a different name and male pronouns for her 11-year-old daughter without her consent. They treated her child as a boy on campus and intentionally kept the mother in the dark.
Or the time a special-needs, middle school student was left to wander lost on a busy intersection after a student-led ICE protest during school hours. His mother was furious that he was allowed to wander the streets without any adult supervision. Or the hundreds of cases of sexual misconduct by teachers every year in our public schools.
That is the real "nightmare," Randi.
So, when Weingarten clutches her pearls over a robot hypothetically helping deliver instruction, forgive me for not being particularly moved. If the choice is between a politically neutral machine that teaches reading, writing, and math, or a system increasingly dominated by activists who see your child as a project for social revolution, do not be surprised if some parents start saying: "Bring on the robot."
And with a price tag of around $25,000, that is much cheaper than paying a left-leaning activist teacher.
* * *
Kali Fontanilla
Kali is serving as CRC's Senior fellow, particularly focusing on topics related to K-12 public education.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/why-a-humanoid-teacher-is-still-less-scary-than-an-activist-teacher/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: Options for the United States to Resolve the Iran Nuclear Challenge
WASHINGTON, April 3 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on April 2, 2026, by Director Heather Williams and Deputy Director Joseph Rodgers, both of the Project on Nuclear Issues in the CSIS Defense and Security Department:* * *
Options for the United States to Resolve the Iran Nuclear Challenge
Introduction
In a 20-minute speech on April 1, President Donald Trump referred to nuclear weapons over 20 times. The speech opened with an overview of the risks of a nuclear Iran as justification for the war and outlined progress in setting back the program: ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 3 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on April 2, 2026, by Director Heather Williams and Deputy Director Joseph Rodgers, both of the Project on Nuclear Issues in the CSIS Defense and Security Department: * * * Options for the United States to Resolve the Iran Nuclear Challenge Introduction In a 20-minute speech on April 1, President Donald Trump referred to nuclear weapons over 20 times. The speech opened with an overview of the risks of a nuclear Iran as justification for the war and outlined progress in setting back the program:"For years, everyone has said that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. But in the end, those are just words. If you're not willing to take action when the time comes."
By relying on the nuclear justification for the war, however, Trump may have painted himself into a corner because now, the end of the war must also have a nuclear solution. The nuclear issue is likely to determine not only when the war ends, but also how it ends, and who can claim "victory." Ultimately, Trump needs a face-saving and expeditious off-ramp to resolve the nuclear issue if he is to achieve his objectives as outlined in the speech.
Status of the Nuclear Stockpile
Trump's speech included a nuclear justification for the war and a broad overview of the damage done to Iran's nuclear program, but the details will matter when it comes time to negotiate a peace agreement. Operation Rising Lion and Operation Midnight Hammer in June 2025 significantly set back Iran's nuclear program, particularly with the strikes on Fordow and Isfahan. Claims by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth stating "Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated," however, appear to have been a bit of an overstatement. The strikes are believed to have rendered centrifuges, equipment, and facilities unusable, but important details about the nuclear program remain unknown.
Most importantly, where is Iran's stockpile of 60 percent enriched uranium? Some reporting indicated the stockpile was buried in Isfahan following the Midnight Hammer strikes. But International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi indicated on March 9 that the stockpile was now in two locations: the underground tunnel complex of Isfahan, along with Natanz. Another question is the status of Iran's nuclear equipment and expertise. In the aftermath of Operation Rising Lion last June, Israeli Ambassador Joshua Zarka claimed that Israel had assassinated 14 of Iran's leading scientists. Israel also targeted centrifuge production facilities across Iran. The current status of Iran's technical and scientific capacity has drastically diminished, but Iran still maintains some capacity. Iran operates several research and nuclear power reactors, including a Russian-operated power reactor at the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant. Additionally, there may be centrifuges stored in underground facilities, enabling a clandestine nuclear program.
But the real challenge is not a technical one, such as the status of the stockpile or enrichment capacity. Rather, it is the deep distrust on both sides that they will uphold their end of any future nuclear bargain, including as part of a peace agreement. The United States and Israel are unlikely to trust any enrichment on Iranian soil, for fear that they could again break out and enrich beyond the 3-5 percent necessary for most peaceful uses. But Iran is also likely deeply distrustful of Washington after Trump withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in May 2018, and may again worry not only that the United States will break out of any diplomatic agreement, but also that diplomacy is a cover for military preparation.
Ensuring that Iran can never produce a nuclear weapon has remained a consistent point of justification for both the United States and Israel. For example, on March 30, Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the primary U.S. demand as "The Iranian regime can never have nuclear weapons . . . their desire to have this nuclear weapon to threaten and blackmail the world with, that will never be allowed to happen. It's too great a risk." And as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on February 28, in his opening statement as the war was launched "The risk of not acting is immeasurably greater, because if we do not act, we will face a nuclear Iran, an Iran with tens of thousands of ballistic missiles, an Iran that will work to destroy us and be immune to our counteractions."
Any nuclear off-ramp will need to address long-standing U.S. and Israeli demands, along with some Iranian hard-liners who have not changed in decades. The U.S. and Israeli position is that Iran can never acquire a nuclear weapon, must verifiably dismantle nuclear infrastructure, including the stockpile, and can never enrich uranium on Iranian soil. In sharp contrast, Iran's position is that domestic enrichment is an inalienable right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and nuclear-related sanctions must be lifted.
Three Options for Nuclear Off-Ramps
Trump's speech is largely being interpreted as setting the stage for continued fighting, but Trump gave at least two indications of how it might end. First was the assertion that "regime change has occurred because of all of their original leaders' death," meaning the administration seems willing to negotiate with the current leadership without more dramatic changes. And second, Trump's numerous and explicit references to damage to the nuclear program suggest he may be hoping that the nuclear issue has been resolved and won't play a spoiler role.
The nuclear issue has not gone away and will need to be part of the denouement of the war. There is the remaining highly enriched uranium (HEU) stockpile, along with Iran's indigenous nuclear knowledge, including in centrifuge technology. Additionally, as a result of the war, Iran may emerge more determined than ever to acquire a nuclear weapon to deter future conflict. The Ayatollah presumably prefers the fate of Kim Jong Un to that of Muammar Gaddafi. Israel is also likely to insist on a clearer resolution to the nuclear issue. Therefore, Trump needs a nuclear solution. We can identify at least three nuclear off-ramps that could contribute to resolving the nuclear issue as part of ending the war.
The Military Option
Numerous reports indicate that President Trump is considering deploying U.S. troops to seize or destroy Iran's stockpile of 440.9 kilograms of 60 percent enriched uranium. This material is deeply buried in at least one, and possibly several, locations across Iran. The IAEA director general, Rafael Grossi, recently stated that at least half of the nuclear material is being stored at the underground facility near the Isfahan nuclear complex. If President Trump decides to resort to a military solution, there are at least three possible options.
First, the United States could choose to conduct a sustained aerial campaign aimed at destroying these underground facilities. This option would be the least politically costly, since it would not incur the need for boots on the ground. However, it is also less likely to succeed over the long-term. Previous strikes during Operation Midnight Hammer against Natanz and Fordow already tested the upper limits of U.S. "bunker-busting" technology with the GBU-57 Massive Ordinance Penetrator. Iran's nuclear material is likely buried deep in the underground facilities, and direct hits with bunker busters may only entomb the material rather than destroy it. If this option is chosen, the United States and Israel would likely continually monitor these sites and be prepared to attack if Iran launches recovery efforts.
The second and third options both involve putting boots on the ground. One path is to send a ground raid to known facilities, including Isfahan's underground facility, to blow up the facilities from the inside. This would require a large expeditionary force to secure a perimeter around the facilities, demolition teams to break through the buried tunnel entrances, and teams to destroy the facility. Any personnel entering the tunnels would need self-contained breathing apparatus suits. By exploding the facilities, the United States could render the material incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to recover. However, without verification, there would be no guarantee that all the fissile material was destroyed.
The most comprehensive option is to seize and remove the material from Iranian control. This operation would bust open the tunnel entrances, identify and remove the nuclear material, and transport it away from Iran. The material could be verified and then safely down-blended with other low-enriched uranium stocks. This option, while the most diplomatically definitive, involves incredible risks. Slow flying cargo transportation airplanes and vehicle convoys would be needed to bring material in and out of Iran. An operation like this would take hundreds or thousands of troops and very detailed infiltration and exfiltration logistics. This type of operation has been described by military experts as the "most complicated special operation in history."
The Diplomatic Option
Second is the diplomatic option. On March 25, the Trump administration offered a 15-point peace plan using Pakistan as a mediator, which included limits on Iran's nuclear program, such as dismantling all nuclear facilities, turning over all nuclear material and equipment to the IAEA, and never again enriching uranium. An Iranian source responded that, "Iran is ready to provide all the necessary guarantees that it will never develop nuclear weapons but is entitled to peaceful use of nuclear technology." The diplomatic option would need to find a workaround for this impasse.
One potential solution is to make Iran's right to enrich conditional on verification that it does not have any weapons ambitions, and allowing time to dismantle its nuclear facilities. In many ways, this was always the bargain: While the NPT allows for access to nuclear material for peaceful uses, that only applies as long as states are in good standing with their NPT obligations and not seeking nuclear material for military purposes. For example, Princeton Policy Advisors recommend, "Iran's nuclear development sites of Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow to remain off-limits for the next three years." The JCPOA limited enrichment for 10 years, which was still considered insufficient for many critics of the deal, including Israel. Therefore, the agreement would need to be paired with more stringent verification measures and the complete dismantlement and verification of existing nuclear facilities.
Another diplomatic option is a regional nuclear consortium, whereby Iran, along with other regional partners, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, would jointly develop low-enriched uranium under international verification. Iran hypothetically could have an enrichment site in another country, allowing for stricter verification and lower risk of diversion. Frank von Hippel and others have outlined the details of such an option, which apparently has gained some traction with Iranian leadership.
The Fig Leaf Option
Finally, the third option is a return to status quo ante with lots of hand-waving. It's difficult to imagine the United States fighting the current conflict with Iran ostensibly over its nuclear program, only for that conflict to end with Iran maintaining a stockpile of 440.9 kilograms of HEU. President Trump's speech, however, seemed intended to signal that the nuclear issue was settled and he would prefer to focus on fighting and winning, particularly to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
In a recent phone interview with CBS, President Trump reportedly failed to specify whether he could declare victory in the Iran conflict while leaving the stockpile of HEU in the country. Instead, he emphasized the difficulty of a military operation to take the material. Trump stated that the uranium is "so deeply buried it's gonna be hard for anybody . . . it's down there deep. . . . but, you know, we'll make a determination." Trump's quote could be seen as an attempt to wave away the problem of Iran's uranium stockpile by framing it as inaccessible.
If this conflict ends without a diplomatic solution to the nuclear problem, then it is highly likely to galvanize Iran to pursue a clandestine nuclear program. Iranian hardliners and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps are already indicating a push for developing a nuclear weapon to prevent a future event like Operation Midnight Hammer or Operation Epic Fury. Even if the United States walks away from the problem and leaves Iran with a lingering stockpile, it will likely take years for Tehran to rebuild a fully robust nuclear program. If such a program is discovered, Israel or the United States would likely repeat military operations in the future, leading to a volatile cycle of counterproliferation efforts.
Bury, Bind, and Bargain
The most likely off-ramp is some combination of the military, diplomatic, and fig leaf options. The priorities should be preventing Iran from rebuilding its nuclear program in the short- to medium-term to allow time for inspections and negotiating a long-term solution. The first step may require military options such as additional strikes on nuclear facilities to further bury the remaining stockpile, requiring extensive digging to access. The United States would be able to observe if Iran tried to retrieve the material. Trump indicated as much in his speech: "The nuclear sites that we obliterated with the B-2 bombers have been hit so hard that it would take months to get near the nuclear dust. And we have it under intense satellite surveillance and control. If we see them make a move, even a move for it, we'll hit them with missiles very hard again." The United States may need to conduct additional strikes to further bury the known stockpile, particularly at Isfahan.
If the war escalates and leads to boots on the ground, the administration may also consider a coordinated operation to remove the stockpile, but this would require complex planning and a longer-term operation because of the size of the stockpile and the nature of its storage. The administration could choose to seize the most accessible material, possibly at Isfahan, and then seek to entomb the material at other locations.
The IAEA should then play an essential role in dismantling and removing what remains of Iran's nuclear program. This will be a hard line for the United States in any negotiation to end the war. As part of its operations, the IAEA may need to oversee a new effort to identify options for retrieving the buried stockpile, which may require robotics and heavy-digging equipment beyond the scope of the IAEA's capacity. This may not be a quick or easy resolution, but it would require multinational expertise and investment.
Finally, the United States will need to bargain with Iran to resolve the enrichment issue. The military option could potentially remove Iran's nuclear material in the short-term. But it doesn't solve the problem of ending the war since Iran is likely to continue to insist on enrichment, and Israel likely won't accept any level of enrichment. The regional enrichment consortium is one creative solution that seemingly had support from both Iran and the United States and can serve as a starting point.
Ultimately, the nuclear issue remains one of the largest impediments to a clear end to the Iran conflict. President Trump's speech yesterday painted Iran's nuclear program as the primary justification for this war. For now, it seems that the best option is to bury the material and negotiate a long-term solution that caps Iran's nuclear program. If the United States fails to achieve a definitive solution, we risk a cycle of perpetual conflict. A face-saving nuclear off-ramp is possible, but only if the administration accepts that it needs comprehensive negotiations to address the long-term risks of Iran's nuclear ambitions.
* * *
Heather Williams is the director of the Project on Nuclear Issues and a senior fellow in the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Joseph Rodgers is deputy director and fellow with the Project on Nuclear Issues in the Defense and Security Department at CSIS.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/options-united-states-resolve-iran-nuclear-challenge
[Category: ThinkTank]
Manhattan Institute Issues Commentary to Wall Street Journal: Hardware Is Back
NEW YORK, April 3 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on April 2, 2026, by senior fellow James B. Meigs to the Wall Street Journal:* * *
Hardware Is Back
Tech giants now want to build for the physical world.
*
"Software is eating the world," digital-tech pioneer Marc Andreessen proclaimed 15 years ago. American industries might once have been built out of steel, concrete and oil. But now, he wrote, digitally based companies like Amazon, Facebook and Google were "poised to take over large swathes of the economy."
History, and the stock market, proved ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, April 3 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on April 2, 2026, by senior fellow James B. Meigs to the Wall Street Journal: * * * Hardware Is Back Tech giants now want to build for the physical world. * "Software is eating the world," digital-tech pioneer Marc Andreessen proclaimed 15 years ago. American industries might once have been built out of steel, concrete and oil. But now, he wrote, digitally based companies like Amazon, Facebook and Google were "poised to take over large swathes of the economy." History, and the stock market, provedhim right. In this century, our economy has seen a huge shift from businesses based in atoms, the physical materials that make up infrastructure and machines, to those made of electrons, the digital bits that comprise the virtual world. Just think of how digital movies streamed on Netflix have largely replaced giant rolls of celluloid projected in metroplexes.
Today, we are pivoting back. Software is still vital, many tech leaders say, but so is the ability to build things in the unforgiving, material world. Ambitious young engineers now aspire to build more than the next dating or food-delivery app. They're designing electric aircraft, rockets and small nuclear reactors. Talk to today's startup founders and investors and you will often hear something like, "I want to work in atoms, not just electrons." Even AI, seemingly the ultimate electron-based industry, requires massive investments in chips, data centers and new power plants. Hardware is cool again.
Continue reading the entire piece here at the Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/opinion/free-expression/hardware-is-back-34e02bb0)
* * *
James B. Meigs is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a City Journal contributing editor.
* * *
Original text here: https://manhattan.institute/article/hardware-is-back
[Category: ThinkTank]
American Action Forum Issues Commentary: NRC Nuclear Reactor Licensing Rule - Overview and Implications
WASHINGTON, April 3 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on April 2, 2026, by Energy and Environmental Policy Director Shuting Pomerleau:* * *
New NRC Nuclear Reactor Licensing Rule: Overview and Implications
Executive Summary
* The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has finalized a new commercial reactor licensing framework, marking the agency's first comprehensive regulatory overhaul since 1989.
* Designed to address the inefficiencies of the previous process--which saw only two reactors become operational in nearly 40 years--the new rule updates the approval process ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 3 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on April 2, 2026, by Energy and Environmental Policy Director Shuting Pomerleau: * * * New NRC Nuclear Reactor Licensing Rule: Overview and Implications Executive Summary * The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has finalized a new commercial reactor licensing framework, marking the agency's first comprehensive regulatory overhaul since 1989. * Designed to address the inefficiencies of the previous process--which saw only two reactors become operational in nearly 40 years--the new rule updates the approval processwith broad applicability, increased flexibility, and modernized risk assessments.
* This insight evaluates the NRC's new licensing framework within the broader U.S. nuclear energy landscape and concludes that the modernized process is a critical milestone for accelerating the deployment of next-generation reactors.
Introduction
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), an independent U.S. regulator responsible for issuing licenses for new nuclear reactors, published a final rule on a new reactor licensing process on March 30, 2026. The new rule, commonly referred to as "Part 53" (as opposed to the previous Part 50-52 regulations), aims to "provide optionality and make licensing advanced nuclear reactors faster, simpler, and more cost-effective while continuing to prioritize safety." It will be effective on April 29, 2026. This new rule is a major milestone in U.S. history of nuclear regulatory framework, as it marks the first new reactor licensing rule in decades--with the previous rule in place since 1989.
Notably, only two nuclear reactors approved under the1989 licensing process have reached commercial operation. The new rule updates the approval process with applicability, increased flexibility, and modernized risk assessments to address the inefficiencies of the previous process.
This insight evaluates the NRC's new licensing framework within the broader U.S. nuclear landscape, concluding that the modernized process is a critical milestone for accelerating the deployment of next-generation reactors.
Overview of the New Rules
The new rule, titled "Risk-Informed, Technology-Inclusive Regulatory Framework for Commercial Nuclear Plants," is designed to help fast-track nuclear energy deployment by providing "greater regulatory stability, predictability, and clarity to the licensing process." NRC started working on updating its licensing regulations in 2019 in response to the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act.
The 186-page new reactor licensing process covers several important aspects:
* Broad applicability: It is applicable to any type of reactor, including both traditional and new generation of reactors. Unlike the old rule, which covered only traditional water-cooled reactors, the new regulatory framework will accommodate advanced reactors that have new technological features in fuel, coolant, and reactor size.
* Increased flexibility: It sets up "a performance-based approach" that gives reactor designers and operators more flexibility in how they construct and run power plants. This new framework is designed to encourage efficiency and innovation by permitting applicants to establish high-level safety objectives and demonstrate how their reactors meet the objectives. This is a major shift from previous regulations built on a prescriptive approach requiring specific methods or processes.
* Modern risk assessment: The new rule adopts a "risk-informed" framework that provides "substantial flexibility" for reactor developers to ensure public health and safety through tailored risk metrics specific to the design of their reactors. This departs from the traditional risk assessment requirement, the "single-failure criterion"--which means the nuclear reactor can still carry out its safety function even if any single component fails.
U.S. Nuclear Energy Landscape
Despite stagnant public support since the 1979 Three Mile Island accident, nuclear energy remains a critical power source, providing 20 percent of U.S. electricity and half of its carbon-free energy. American Action Forum's (AAF) previous insight provided an overview of the renewed U.S. interest in nuclear energy.
As shown in the chart below, the vast majority of U.S. nuclear reactors were built between 1970 and 1990. Following the 2016 launch of Watts Bar Unit 2, the only recent additions to the fleet were Georgia's Vogtle Units 3 and 4, which entered service in 2023 and 2024.
* * *
[View chart in the link at bottom.]
* * *
Notably, since the most recent NRC regulation was released in 1989, eight of 20 applications have been approved under the framework. The aforementioned Vogtle Units 3 and 4 are the only units to reach commercial operation. The other approved projects were either suspended or terminated due to cost or other factors. Other operating reactors such as the Watts Bar Unit 2 were approved under regulations that predate the 1989 framework.
Following the 2024 bipartisan nuclear legislation, the "Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy Act of 2024," the Trump Administration has been leveraging executive action to boost U.S. nuclear energy development.
In 2025, President Trump signed four executive orders (EOs) designed to streamline regulatory reviews, boost nuclear energy exports, and reform the NRC. This AAF insight provided an in-depth analysis of the goals and implications of those EOs. These orders are part of the administration's broad efforts to fulfill its energy independence agenda.
The NRC is expected to release several additional new rules over the next months to "revolutionize reactor licensing," according to the agency's press release.
Conclusion
The new NRC licensing rule is broader, more flexible, and updated to match the technological advancement in the U.S. nuclear energy industry compared to the old rule published 37 years ago. It is an encouraging development in the U.S. nuclear regulatory framework that will be helpful in accelerating the approval process for a new generation of nuclear reactors.
* * *
Shuting Pomerleau is the Director of Energy and Environmental Policy at the American Action Forum
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/new-nrc-nuclear-reactor-licensing-rule-overview-and-implications/
[Category: Think Tank]