Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Week in Review: 17 States!
PHOENIX, Arizona, April 3 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Goldwater Institute posted the following news:
* * *
Week in Review: 17 States!
*
Patients in West Virginia with rare and ultra-rare diseases have a new reason for hope. That's because Gov. Patrick Morrisey signed a bill making West Virginia the 17 th state to enact the Goldwater Institute's Right to Try for Individualized Treatments-legislation that empowers patients to seek highly specialized treatments that are as unique as they are.
Right to Try for Individualized Treatments, or Right to Try 2.0, builds off Goldwater's original Right
... Show Full Article
PHOENIX, Arizona, April 3 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Goldwater Institute posted the following news:
* * *
Week in Review: 17 States!
*
Patients in West Virginia with rare and ultra-rare diseases have a new reason for hope. That's because Gov. Patrick Morrisey signed a bill making West Virginia the 17 th state to enact the Goldwater Institute's Right to Try for Individualized Treatments-legislation that empowers patients to seek highly specialized treatments that are as unique as they are.
Right to Try for Individualized Treatments, or Right to Try 2.0, builds off Goldwater's original Rightto Try Act, which was passed in 41 states before it was signed into federal law in 2018. That law frees terminal patients to access some investigational treatments not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration. But medical advancements now allow treatments to be designed specifically for a patient based on their own genetics-treatments that just can't make it through the FDA's outdated regulatory process in a timely manner. Those are the treatments patients can access through Right to Try 2.0.
The Goldwater Institute will continue fighting in states around the nation-and in Washington D.C.-to ensure that no patient is denied potentially life-saving treatments because of red tape and bureaucracy.
Read more here.
Unstacking the Deck Against Average Alabamans
Americans who challenge the government in court should expect a level playing field, but far too often that simply isn't the case. Now, a new law in Alabama-modeled on the Goldwater Institute's Judicial Deference Reform Act-will ensure that average Americans will get a fair shake in court by making it clear that the scales will not automatically be tipped in the government's favor.
Alabama Senate Bill 167, which Gov. Kay Ivey just signed, ends the practice of judicial deference to administrative agencies' interpretations of the law and their own regulations. The legislation is important because when government agencies expand their power through expansive interpretations of the law-and those interpretations are then upheld by overly deferential courts-the legal deck ends up stacked in favor of unelected bureaucrats.
In 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the federal Chevron doctrine, which required courts to defer to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous laws. But that decision didn't apply at the state level, which is why the Goldwater Institute will continue working to ensure this misguided doctrine no longer holds sway anywhere.
Read more here.
A Burger Mural Free Speech Battle
The leaders of Salina, Kansas, love their murals-they invite in artists to paint them, they feature them on the city's website, they even host an annual mural festival. So why then did those same leaders take aim at a mural painted on a local burger joint's building? As the Goldwater Institute explains in a new brief, because they're trying to ban business speech-and that's unconstitutional.
The case involves the owner of the Cozy Inn burger joint who started painting a mural on his building featuring burger spaceships and inviting people in for a bite to eat. The problem, according to the city, is that the Cozy Inn's mural isn't a mural at all, but is instead a sign-the difference being that a sign "directs people's attention" to things. But that's not true at all; many of Salina's murals direct attention to things. What the city is really trying to do is ban speech with a commercial motive.
The Goldwater Institute-joined by the Manhattan Institute-is urging the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a lower court's ruling that backed the free speech rights of businesses like the Cozy Inn. Business speech isn't a trivial thing, which is why the Goldwater Institute will continue urging courts and governments around the nation to respect everybody's right to speak freely.
***
Original text here: https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/week-in-review-17-states/
March Job Gains Mask a Volatile Labor Market as Iran War Chaos Mounts
WASHINGTON, April 3 [Category: ThinkTank] -- Groundwork Collaborative, a think tank and progressive advocacy group, posted the following news release:
* * *
March Job Gains Mask a Volatile Labor Market as Iran War Chaos Mounts
*
After February's losses, March gains do little to reverse a slowing and unstable labor market
Today's jobs report shows the labor market added 178,000 jobs in March, and February's losses significantly revised down, revealing a decrease of 133,000 jobs. The unemployment rate remained mostly unchanged at 4.3%, with unemployment at its weakest pace since 2020. As hiring
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 3 [Category: ThinkTank] -- Groundwork Collaborative, a think tank and progressive advocacy group, posted the following news release:
* * *
March Job Gains Mask a Volatile Labor Market as Iran War Chaos Mounts
*
After February's losses, March gains do little to reverse a slowing and unstable labor market
Today's jobs report shows the labor market added 178,000 jobs in March, and February's losses significantly revised down, revealing a decrease of 133,000 jobs. The unemployment rate remained mostly unchanged at 4.3%, with unemployment at its weakest pace since 2020. As hiringstalls, the share of workers who say it's harder to find jobs has increased sharply, and the number of workers who have given up on the labor market entirely increased by 40% in the last month alone. Paychecks are stalling as prices rise from Trump's war with Iran and continued uncertainty over his tariffs, squeezing Americans from all sides.
Groundwork's Chief Economist Breyon Williams released the following statement:
"Beyond today's headline bounce, the labor market continues to deteriorate under Trump's economic mismanagement: hiring has ground to a halt, paychecks are shrinking, and workers are giving up on finding a job altogether. A single month of modest gains can't reverse the damage that the president has inflicted on working families."
BACKGROUND
* The March jobs report confirms a volatile labor market, as workers are at the whim of the president's chaos. Job growth remains inconsistent, with modest gains following sharp losses in February. This extends a stop-and-start pattern with gains one month followed by losses the next that has persisted since last June.
* In the first quarter of this year, just 68,000 jobs have been added per month on average. This represents one of the weakest first quarters of job growth outside of a recession since 2003.
* The headline number overstates the health of the labor market as half of job gains were in the health care sector and driven by physicians returning from strike activity, a one-time bounce.
* The share of consumers who say jobs are currently hard to get rose to 21.5% in March, the highest in more than five years, according to The Conference Board. The share expecting fewer jobs in the next six months also climbed, and the number of consumers expecting a recession in the next 12 months is up.
* Hiring has slowed to its weakest pace since 2020 as job openings vanish, leaving jobless workers out to dry. The number of marginally attached workers increased by 20% and discouraged workers by 40% in a single month.
* The latest Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) data show the hiring rate fell to 3.1% in February. Job openings dropped to 6.9 million from 7.2 million the month before.
* As the job market slumps, it's taking workers longer to find a job: the average duration of unemployment spells is nearly four months and has increased by nearly 19% over the past year.
* For workers just entering the labor market, finding work is even more challenging: Entry-level job postings have dried up, leaving a generation of young workers locked out of careers before they can start.
* Paychecks are stalling as inflation heats up. Average weekly earnings ticked slightly down in March as hourly earnings were roughly flat but hours declined. Shrinking paychecks will make the price hikes caused by Trump's war on Iran even more painful for families who are already struggling to keep up.
***
Original text here: https://groundworkcollaborative.org/news/march-job-gains-mask-a-volatile-labor-market-as-iran-war-chaos-mounts/
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]
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]
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]
CSIS Issues Commentary: Houthi Threat - Is Trump Underestimating One of Iran's Key Remaining Cards?
WASHINGTON, April 3 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on April 2, 2026, by Will Todman, chief of staff of the Geopolitics and Foreign Policy Department and senior fellow in the Middle East Program:
* * *
The Houthi Threat: Is Trump Underestimating One of Iran's Key Remaining Cards?
On April 1, President Trump announced that the United States' strategic objectives in the war with Iran were "nearing completion." He threatened to send Iran "back to the stone ages" if it did not make a deal within three weeks, and said "we have all the cards, they
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 3 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on April 2, 2026, by Will Todman, chief of staff of the Geopolitics and Foreign Policy Department and senior fellow in the Middle East Program:
* * *
The Houthi Threat: Is Trump Underestimating One of Iran's Key Remaining Cards?
On April 1, President Trump announced that the United States' strategic objectives in the war with Iran were "nearing completion." He threatened to send Iran "back to the stone ages" if it did not make a deal within three weeks, and said "we have all the cards, theyhave none."
Yet, Iran does have other cards to play. A few days before President Trump's address, the Houthis entered the fray in the Middle East. After months of signaling their readiness to escalate, they launched missiles toward Israel. Iranian officials had warned that their Yemeni proxies would be activated if the United States and Israel escalated further or if Arab Gulf states entered the war. But despite these threats and the Houthis' past willingness to target international shipping, they have not attacked maritime traffic through Bab al-Mandab so far this year.
Following Iran's effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, Bab al-Mandab is the Middle East's most critical maritime chokepoint. A coordinated or sequential disruption of both straits would constitute an unprecedented shock to global trade and energy markets. The Houthis' reticence suggests either constraint or calculation: They may be weakened after sustained U.S. and Israeli strikes in 2025; they may be holding back due to incentives from an external actor like Saudi Arabia; or they may simply be waiting for a moment of maximum leverage as the conflict evolves.
The risk is that the Houthis' restraint proves short-lived. President Trump continues to signal a willingness to escalate further against Iran, deploying thousands more ground forces to the region while continuing to threaten strikes on critical energy infrastructure. If these threats materialize and the Houthis attack Bab al-Mandab in response, it will shake economies across the world.
Bab al-Mandab is a vital artery connecting European and Asian markets and a newly important corridor for Saudi energy exports. At its narrowest, it is an 18-mile-wide maritime chokepoint between Yemen and Djibouti. Before 2023, approximately 9 million barrels of oil per day transited Bab al-Mandab, alongside a substantial share of global container shipping.
The Houthis have demonstrated both a willingness and ability to block this chokepoint before. In response to Israel's invasion of Gaza following the October 7 attacks of 2023, Houthi attacks on commercial shipping caused traffic through Bab al-Mandab to drop sharply. Oil flows declined by over half to roughly 4 million barrels per day. Shipping companies responded to the instability by rerouting vessels around the Cape of Good Hope, extending transit times by weeks and sharply increasing costs for key global supply chains.
Attacks on shipping in Bab al-Mandab would be particularly consequential for Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom has used its East-West pipeline to mitigate the effects of Iran's blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. The pipeline pumps crude oil from Saudi Arabia's eastern coast to the Red Sea port of Yanbu, bypassing the Strait of Hormuz. However, this pipeline has a capacity of approximately 7 million barrels per day and is already operating near its maximum.
A Houthi attack on Bab al-Mandab would wreck Saudi Arabia's mitigation strategy. Not only would Saudi exports from the Red Sea face disruption, but the East-West pipeline itself could become a target for Houthi missile and drone attacks. The downstream effects would be felt most acutely in Asia, which is the destination of 75 percent of oil exports from Saudi Arabia. Higher oil prices would exacerbate inflation, strain public finances, and complicate economic recovery efforts across Asian economies and beyond.
The closure of Bab al-Mandab would have profound implications beyond energy. Egypt is a case in point, even though it has not yet been embroiled in the conflict directly. The Suez Canal is an essential lifeline for Egypt's economy, typically handling around 30 percent of global container traffic and generating billions of dollars in transit fees. In 2023, it generated $9.4 billion in revenue.
Therefore, a sustained disruption to Red Sea shipping would sharply undercut Egypt's foreign reserves. This would come at a particularly precarious moment. The Egyptian pound has depreciated significantly, inflation remains elevated, and the government is struggling to maintain subsidies for fuel and basic goods. Energy shortages have forced the government to implement rationing measures, including banning businesses from operating after 9 p.m. and issuing a partial remote work mandate for public and private sector workers. Rising food prices are hitting the poorest in Egypt hardest, with the cost of basic staples like potatoes and tomatoes increasing by more than 30 percent in just the weeks since the conflict began.
A compounding economic crisis in Egypt could have important spillover effects. Egypt has a population of 117 million and is often described as "too big to fail." Yet, worsening living conditions could fuel unrest, threaten the stability of the regime, and spark waves of outward migration.
Egypt is just one of the many countries around the world that would be plunged into crisis if the Houthis try to block Bab al-Mandab. If faced with an even more serious escalation from the United States, the Iranians could well decide that the Houthis hold the key to their survival. Should Iran choose to play this card, the costs of the war for the global economy will rise considerably, and some governments will have to resort to even more drastic measures to weather the storm.
* * *
Will Todman is the chief of staff of the Geopolitics and Foreign Policy Department and a senior fellow in the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/houthi-threat-trump-underestimating-one-irans-key-remaining-cards
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI Statement on SNAP Program Oversight in Georgia
WASHINGTON, April 3 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement:
* * *
AFPI Statement on SNAP Program Oversight in Georgia
Atlanta, GA - The Executive Director of the America First Policy Institute's Georgia Chapter, Rebecca Yardley, issued the following statement after the Georgia Senate Agriculture and Consumer Affairs Committee did not advance House Bill 947, known as the "Georgia SNAP Healthier Choices Act of 2026," which would have closed the Broad Based Categorial Eligibility (BBCE) loophole in the state SNAP program:
"The Georgia Senate did not advance House
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 3 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement:
* * *
AFPI Statement on SNAP Program Oversight in Georgia
Atlanta, GA - The Executive Director of the America First Policy Institute's Georgia Chapter, Rebecca Yardley, issued the following statement after the Georgia Senate Agriculture and Consumer Affairs Committee did not advance House Bill 947, known as the "Georgia SNAP Healthier Choices Act of 2026," which would have closed the Broad Based Categorial Eligibility (BBCE) loophole in the state SNAP program:
"The Georgia Senate did not advance HouseBill 947, legislation that was intended to address longstanding concerns about accountability in Georgia's SNAP program--particularly the Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE) policy--at a time when program oversight is increasingly important.
BBCE allows states to bypass certain SNAP eligibility checks, including asset limits and full income verification, meaning benefits can be approved before all financial information is confirmed. With one of the highest payment error rates in the nation, Georgia faces the risk of significant new financial liabilities if these issues remain unaddressed.
Policies that improve the accuracy of eligibility determinations and reinforce oversight can help ensure that benefits are delivered as intended while safeguarding taxpayer dollars. Continued attention to these issues may be important to maintaining both public trust and the long-term sustainability of the program."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-statement-on-snap-program-oversight-in-georgia
[Category: ThinkTank]
