Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Rand Issues Commentary: What Prospects for Lasting Peace Between Armenia and Azerbaijan?
SANTA MONICA, California, Jan. 13 -- Rand issued the following commentary on Jan. 12, 2026:* * *
What Prospects for Lasting Peace Between Armenia and Azerbaijan?
By William Dunbar
While the eyes of the world were focused on the spiralling conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine in 2025, progress was being made towards tentative peace elsewhere--between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The Armenia-Azerbaijan peace agreement, mediated by President Trump in August 2025, has the potential to transform one of the most intractable conflicts on the territory of the former Soviet Union, and to unlock trade ... Show Full Article SANTA MONICA, California, Jan. 13 -- Rand issued the following commentary on Jan. 12, 2026: * * * What Prospects for Lasting Peace Between Armenia and Azerbaijan? By William Dunbar While the eyes of the world were focused on the spiralling conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine in 2025, progress was being made towards tentative peace elsewhere--between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The Armenia-Azerbaijan peace agreement, mediated by President Trump in August 2025, has the potential to transform one of the most intractable conflicts on the territory of the former Soviet Union, and to unlock tradeand transport routes from Asia to Europe that bypass both Russia and Iran. However, a combination of constitutional challenges and geopolitical interference could stand in the way of this breakthrough leading to a lasting peace. If the West wants to claim a rare diplomatic victory in the Caucasus, sustained engagement will be required in 2026.
A Fragile Peace
Beyond the initial fanfare which greeted the joint declaration agreed in Washington, much remains uncertain and diplomatic follow through seems to have slowed. The agreement provides for the establishment of diplomatic relations and delineation of borders, and, critically, for the building of a transport route connecting Azerbaijan to its exclave of Nakhichevan, a route now dubbed the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity. However, progress is on hold since neither country has yet signed it.
(P[
Baku will not sign the agreement until Armenia removes what it says are claims to Azerbaijani territory from the text of its constitution. Armenia, for its part, is preparing constitutional changes, but these will have to be ratified in a referendum that is slated for 2027. Given that Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan could face an uphill battle to be re-elected in a parliamentary poll in 2026, this leaves constitutional amendments up in the air, as well as the future of the peace agreement.
Not only is the peace deal itself fragile, but the geopolitical context in which it was signed has changed markedly since President Trump brought Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliev together in Washington in August. At that time, Russian-Azerbaijani relations had been at a historic low point for over six months. However, a rapprochement between Moscow and Baku in October 2025, and renewed Russian interference in Armenia, could undermine American and Western influence and derail the process.
Russia Rebuilding Influence in Baku and Yerevan
The weakening of Russia's influence in both Baku and Yerevan opened the possibility for a Western-led peace mediation effort. Moscow's military failures and diplomatic isolation in the wake of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine gave Azerbaijan a free hand in its disputed Karabakh region. In 2023, Russian peacekeepers, deployed in the region to protect its 100,000 strong ethnic Armenian population in the wake of the 2020 Second Karabakh War, did nothing as Azerbaijani troops stormed in, forcing out the population in what the European Parliament has called ethnic cleansing. This had the dual effect of diminishing Russian prestige in Azerbaijan and destroying Russia's reputation in Armenia: in 2021, 37 percent of Armenians said Russia was the main friend of the country, in 2024 that figure had declined to 12 percent. Russia-Azerbaijan relations were further weakened that year by the shooting down of an Azerbaijani passenger jet by Russian air defence. At the time, Putin appeared to try to shift the blame for the incident to Ukrainian drones, which was greeted with anger in Baku. This was followed in July by the violent arrests of Azerbaijani citizens in Yekaterinburg that left two dead.
However, Russia is now seeking to rebuild its position in both countries. In Azerbaijan, Putin's recent, more fulsome apologies over the downed passenger jet seem to have done the trick of putting the relationship back on a "business-as-usual" footing, albeit one that now resembles an equal partnership rather than one in which Baku was subordinate, a situation which prevailed prior to 2023. It is in Azerbaijan's interest to pursue two track diplomacy--one in an east-west direction with its ally Turkey, and another in a north-south with Moscow. Indeed, sometimes these two directions fortuitously pull together, as in the case of increased Azerbaijani gas exports to Europe, exports which some experts believe have their origin in Russia.
In Armenia, meanwhile, Russia is lending its support to opponents of Pashinyan, some of whom have called for a union state between Armenia and Russia "on the Belarus model." Samvel Karapetyan, a dual Russian-Armenian billionaire who was arrested in June over calls to overthrow the government, is also seen by some as a potential pro-Russian candidate at the parliamentary elections this year.
Notably, while Russia aims to both rebuild a mutually beneficial relationship with Baku, and undermine Pashinyan's pro-Western government in Yerevan, it also wants to reassert its role as regional arbiter. The peace agreement mediated by President Trump directly undermines this role, meaning that Moscow is now more likely to seek opportunities to play spoiler.
Western Engagement Underwrites Stability
Given this volatile diplomatic landscape, it is vital that Western policymakers increase engagement with Armenia and Azerbaijan if the potential benefits of President Trump's peace agreement are to be realized. The main obstacle to signing is Baku's demand that Armenia change its constitution, which cannot happen without a referendum and there is no guarantee that Armenian voters will back a new charter.
The referendum was expected at the same time as parliamentary polls this year, but Pashinyan has postponed it until next year. He hopes to separate what is likely to be a polarizing election from the non-partisan issue of constitutional changes, and to buy time to build up support. However, Pashinyan's poll ratings are low and his success in the election or the referendum cannot be guaranteed. The delay may also prompt Baku to adopt a more bellicose stance. Following the August meeting in D.C., it was reported that Baku would be winding down its "Western Azerbaijan" irridentist project which made territorial claims on much of Armenia, but by September, it was made known that the "Western Azerbaijan Community" would continue to enjoy the government's blessing. Such rhetoric from Baku could heighten the risk that Armenian voters will reject the referendum. Thus, at present the peace agreement exists in diplomatic limbo: agreed but not signed, a roadmap for the future but also a bone of contention in the present.
Given these circumstances, the West could attempt to help the parties come up with a Plan B, such as signing the agreement without ratifying it. In any event, the West must make it clear to Azerbaijan that any further military pressure on Armenia would be unacceptable.
The West could also help Yerevan and Baku promote the peace agreement to domestic audiences. Here, there is greater opportunity to engage with Armenia, and to entrench the democratic progress and westward turn that have been achieved in the last few years. Investment in the country's independent media and civil society would help them respond to Russian influence operations and other hybrid tactics, which are all but certain to intensify as parliamentary elections approach, with a likely focus on Pashinyan's supposed capitulation to Baku.
In the longer term, the West should support the Armenian government to make the case for a pro-Western Armenia at peace with its neighbors. The recent USAID shutdown ended programs designed to help Armenian media achieve financial sustainability and stopped funding to increase the strategic communications capacity of the Armenian government. If the West is serious about fostering a peaceful South Caucasus free from Russian interference, the time to increase support is now.
* * *
More About This Commentary
William Dunbar is a RAND Europe associate.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2026/01/what-prospects-for-lasting-peace-between-armenia-and-azerbaijan.html
[Category: ThinkTank]
Jamestown Foundation Issues Commentary to Eurasia Daily Monitor: Kremlin Pushing Karelia to Become Anti-European Outpost
WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on Jan. 12, 2026, in its Eurasia Daily Monitor:* * *
Kremlin Pushing Karelia to Become Anti-European Outpost
By Vadim Shtepa
Executive Summary:
* Russia's Republic of Karelia historically thrived on deep cultural and economic ties with Finland and Europe, but Putin-era isolationism has severed cross-border cooperation, triggering economic crisis, emigration, and the decline of Karelia's distinct Finno-Ugric cultural identity.
* The Kremlin promotes "Russian World" imperial ideology, Russian Orthodoxy, and anti-European ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on Jan. 12, 2026, in its Eurasia Daily Monitor: * * * Kremlin Pushing Karelia to Become Anti-European Outpost By Vadim Shtepa Executive Summary: * Russia's Republic of Karelia historically thrived on deep cultural and economic ties with Finland and Europe, but Putin-era isolationism has severed cross-border cooperation, triggering economic crisis, emigration, and the decline of Karelia's distinct Finno-Ugric cultural identity. * The Kremlin promotes "Russian World" imperial ideology, Russian Orthodoxy, and anti-Europeannarratives in Karelia while marginalizing the Karelian language and culture. Since 2022, Moscow has militarized Karelia, prioritizing troop deployments and defense spending over civilian needs.
* Despite official hostility toward Finland, many Karelians still view Europe as a path to education and opportunity, reflected in lower support for the United Russia party in Karelia and acts of political defiance, such as the regional opposition's December 2025 parliamentary walkout.
Opposition deputies in Russia's Republic of Karelia's parliament walked out of a session in a rare act of defiance in December 2025 after the ruling "United Russia" party refused to discuss their proposed budget amendments intended to address some of the region's economic and social issues (The Barents Observer, December 5, 2025; Window On Eurasia, December 8, 2025). Karelia has long been characterized by the close interconnection of Scandinavian, Finnish, and Slavic (Novgorod-Pomor) cultural traditions. Cross-border cooperation has developed here for centuries. The border between Karelia and Finland is the longest stretch of the Russian-EU border--approximately 723 kilometers (449 miles). The Kremlin's isolationist and bellicose foreign policy, however, means that Karelia can no longer take advantage of its proximity to the European Union for economic and cultural gain, causing emigration and an economic crisis that has accelerated since 2022. The dominant regional authorities in Karelia, obedient to the Kremlin, are generally unresponsive to their constituents' needs.
In the late 1970s, Finnish companies built factories and entire towns, including Kostomuksha, in Soviet Karelia. In the post-Soviet era, Finland readily issued visas to Karelian residents, and their trips to Finland became commonplace. In the 1990s, Karelia was the most pro-European republic within the Russian Federation. Finnish companies connected residential buildings in Petrozavodsk, the capital of Karelia, to cable internet in the late 1990s, even before this process began in Moscow. In 2000, the regional governments of Russian Karelia and three Finnish counties created the Karelian Euroregion (Evroregion Karelia, accessed February 18, 2013). Cross-border cooperation developed so rapidly during this time that there was talk of mutual visa abolition for residents of the Karelian Euroregion.
Russian President Vladimir Putin's rise to power gradually shifted Karelia, along with the rest of Russia, toward a more isolationist foreign policy. Ties with Finland declined, giving way to the imperial ideology of the "Russian World." In the 1990s, when borders eased after the fall of the Soviet Union, many ethnic Karelians moved to Finland, diluting the republic's distinct cultural identity. In the 2021 census, only about 5 percent of Karelia's residents identified themselves as ethnically Karelian, a Finno-Ugric group that practices Eastern Orthodoxy and speaks a Finnic language. The Karelian language has no official status in Russia because it is written in the Latin alphabet, as only those written in Cyrillic can be official languages of Russian republics (Sever Realii, October 22, 2021). Between 2010 and 2021, Karelia lost more than 74 percent of its Karelian speakers. In the same period, the number of ethnic Karelians living in Russia decreased by nearly half due to migration to Finland and Moscow's Russification policies (The Moscow Times, December 9, 2025).
In 2021, Putin signed a decree to celebrate the symbolic "800th anniversary" of the conversion of ethnic Karelians to Russian Orthodoxy in 2027 (Sever Realii, October 22, 2021). Many historians consider this date more myth than reality, a story used to explain the Russification of Karelians (Republic of Karelia, March 7, 2017). The Kremlin likely intends the celebration to distinguish the "righteous" Russian Orthodox Karelians from Finnish Karelians, who are Lutherans.
Since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Karelia has become virtually indistinguishable from other Russian regions in culture. Since Finland joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 2023, the Kremlin has promoted a hostile ideology toward its neighbor in Karelia, in stark contrast to the cooperative attitude of the 1990s and early 2000s (The Moscow Times, December 9, 2025). Collaboration with Europe has been discarded, supplanted by militant imperial patriotism.
In November 2025, the "Karelia Expert Discussion Club," an institute under the region's governor, launched a project titled "Karelia--Outpost of the Russian North." The project encourages locals to shift their identity from open and pro-European to aggressively anti-European and to consider themselves "defenders of Russia's borders" in light of Finland's membership in NATO (Novaya Gazeta, November 28, 2025). This project meets the Kremlin's demand for a fight against the "collective West."
Karelia's shift away from Europe also taken on a military dimension since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In April 2024, the Kremlin deployed a missile brigade armed with Iskander-M systems to the region (Republic of Karelia, April 19, 2024). An entire army corps has been deployed there, and Russian servicemen are moving to the republic en masse with their families. This militarization, along with the increase in military personnel in a community where local populations are declining, is likely to further erode Karelia's culture (Republic of Karelia, May 22, 2025).
Military spending in today's Karelia significantly exceeds spending on the needs of the civilian population, which is experiencing an acute economic and social crisis (The Barents Observer, March 19, 2025). The Kremlin's foreign aggression means that Karelia's primary trade partner is now the People's Republic of China (PRC) rather than Finland, though, for logistical reasons, trade volume is lower than before 2022 with Helsinki (Region.expert, April 29, 2024).
On December 6, 2025, Finland and the United Kingdom concluded joint military exercises just 70 kilometers (43 miles) from Karelia (The Moscow Times, December 9, 2025). Valery Potashov, a journalist from Karelia who left Russia under threat of arrest in 2025, said in response:
All narratives of our republic's politicians now center on the idea that Finland is a military threat to us ... Among the older generation, those sentiments have resurfaced--that Finland is an enemy, that they attacked us in the past--but middle-aged and young people do not see Finland that way ... Though moving to Finland has become increasingly difficult, Karelians' interest in studying there has only grown since the start of the Ukraine war (The Moscow Times, December 9, 2025).
Moving to Finland is seen as a way for children to receive a European education that will open doors to Europe while protecting them from being drafted into Russia's army (The Moscow Times, December 9, 2025).
The dominant regional authorities in Karelia, obedient to the Kremlin, refuse to listen to their constituents' views on Europe. Even before Moscow's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, in the 2021 State Duma elections, "United Russia" won only 32 percent of the vote in Karelia, compared to almost 50 percent nationwide (TASS, September 19, 2021; RIA Novosti, September 21, 2021). The December 2025 walkout from Karelia's parliament by opposition deputies, however, represents a rare rebellion in Russian politics (The Barents Observer, December 5, 2025; Window On Eurasia, December 8, 2025). Karelia's opposition appears at least partially willing to represent the interests of the republic's population, which is in deep social and economic crisis. This responsiveness could lead to an upsurge in organized civil protests in Karelia in the coming year.
* * *
Vadim Shtepa is the editor-in-chief of Region.Expert (www.region.expert), the only independent media outlet on Russian regionalism and federalism.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/kremlin-pushing-karelia-to-become-anti-european-outpost/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Hudson Institute Issues Commentary to National Review: End of a Spiritual Retreat in the Aspen Mountains
WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Jan. 10, 2026, to the National Review:* * *
The End of a Spiritual Retreat in the Aspen Mountains
By Thomas J. Duesterberg
Tomorrow, St. Benedict's Monastery, just outside Aspen in a beautiful mountain valley called Old Snowmass, will celebrate its last Sunday service as it prepares to move on from its home for the last 70 years. Soon, the new owner of the spiritual landmark, Palantir founder and German-trained intellectual ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Jan. 10, 2026, to the National Review: * * * The End of a Spiritual Retreat in the Aspen Mountains By Thomas J. Duesterberg Tomorrow, St. Benedict's Monastery, just outside Aspen in a beautiful mountain valley called Old Snowmass, will celebrate its last Sunday service as it prepares to move on from its home for the last 70 years. Soon, the new owner of the spiritual landmark, Palantir founder and German-trained intellectualAlex Karp, will make it his new home. The monastery is closing due to costs of maintaining the property and declining number of monks joining the Benedictine order. What Karp will do with what was long a center of spiritual life in the mountain valleys, and whose modern origins owe much to the Western religious and humanist tradition, is yet to be seen.
The post-World War II development of modern Aspen owes much to the vision of Chicago industrialist Walter Paepcke, a generous civic leader with a powerful vision for the decrepit mining town, which he saw as an attractive site for a European-style ski center. Along with and central to his ski resort project, Paepcke saw the possibilities of a humanistic center of revival in the wake of the despair of the Great Depression, war, and the rise of authoritarian, illiberal ideologies.
The key event in the creation of the new center was a 1949 summer conference in Aspen to honor the 200th anniversary of the birth of European humanist icon J. W. Goethe and promote understanding of the humanistic spirit. With the help of University of Chicago philosopher and academic visionary Mortimer Adler, Paepcke assembled a group of distinguished European luminaries such as Albert Schweitzer and Jose Ortega y Gasset, along with Americans Thornton Wilder and Robert Hutchins, to honor the memory and spirit of Goethe. In grand European tradition for mountain retreats, Paepcke also arranged for the Minnesota Philharmonic to anchor a classical music program.
The 1949 festivals were the origins of the Aspen Institute, grown to be a famous think tank that features an annual "Ideas Festival" and programs to introduce corporate executives to classical texts. It also eventually inspired the world-famous Aspen summer music festival and school. Paepke even attracted Bauhaus refugee Herbert Bayer to enliven the artistic life of the area. The Austrian left an indelible mark on the architecture of the area. An unrelated annual design conference attracted a young Steve Jobs, who credited the summer meeting with inspiring his Apple aesthetic.
Less visible but in many respects more important to creating a spiritual revival was the founding of St. Benedict's Monastery in 1956 just outside Aspen. The first years of the Catholic mountain center for contemplation and searching for mystical discovery of the creator featured the more rigorous Trappist set of rules, notably the rule of silence. I discovered this personally many decades ago when a stern note of reprimand was left for me on a visit to the Monastery grounds. The Institution is formally part of the "Order of Cistertians of the Strict Observance (OSCE)," which follows the Rule of Benedict but features more rigorous practices.
The Benedictine rules, which date to the 6th century, are the oldest in Latin Christianity, and are more oriented to community life, described as cenobitic, Greek for common life. This rule differs from the more ascetic, or hermetic, life that many understand monastery life to be. Because of this, and also as a bow to modernity, the Snowmass site relaxed the rule of silence and eventually integrated further into community life. A retreat center was built on the grounds of the 3700-acre property, which was leased to local ranchers and farmers, and church services were opened to outsiders.
In a sign of the power of the experience, a resident monk noted that the Aspen Institute corporate program in classical texts sometimes brought its students to the monastery. One admittedly secular participant remarked, "I do not completely understand what I saw there, but I know that I am permanently changed -- and for the better." The brother responsible for the change said, "There is something of the monk that exists in all of us."
In later years, the monastery welcomed friends in the valley who cherished the vesper services, sung partly in Gregorian chant, and attended the Sunday lauds and Mass. I was able to attend the penultimate Sunday Mass last weekend, and the standing-room-only audience had difficulty finding parking spaces. The presiding priest gave a sermon, being the week of the Epiphany, on the modern science of starlight and celestial movement, coupled with the ancient art that led the Three Magi to the site of the birth of the Savior.
With the local cultural and intellectual life increasingly secular and dominated by privileged, hedonistic, woke, aggressively anti-religious, and new age ideological adherents, the Benedictine monastery was one of the last vestiges of the long spiritual traditions of the Western world in the vision of Paepcke and his collaborators. Apparently, the new owner will use the property as his own mountain retreat. Hopefully, he can find a way to share that magical mountain location and spiritual center with the other souls of the central Colorado valleys.
The 1949 festivals were the origins of the Aspen Institute, grown to be a famous think tank that features an annual "Ideas Festival" and programs to introduce corporate executives to classical texts. It also eventually inspired the world-famous Aspen summer music festival and school. Paepke even attracted Bauhaus refugee Herbert Bayer to enliven the artistic life of the area. The Austrian left an indelible mark on the architecture of the area. An unrelated annual design conference attracted a young Steve Jobs, who credited the summer meeting with inspiring his Apple aesthetic.
Read in The National Review (https://www.nationalreview.com/2026/01/the-end-of-a-spiritual-retreat-in-the-aspen-mountains/).
* * *
Thomas J. Duesterberg is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute. An expert of trade, manufacturing, economics, and foreign policy, Dr. Duesterberg leads project work on trade with Europe and China, reform of the World Trade Organization (WTO), global competition in advanced technologies such as 5G, and the strength of the United States manufacturing sector.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/end-spiritual-retreat-aspen-mountains-thomas-duesterberg
[Category: ThinkTank]
Hudson Institute Issues Commentary to Fox News: Supreme Court Needs to Stop Louisiana Grift Against Energy Firms
WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Jan. 12, 2026, to Fox News:* * *
Supreme Court Needs to Stop Louisiana Grift Against Energy Firms
By William P. Barr
The U.S. Supreme Court, by now all too familiar with lawfare, will consider a startling case on Monday, Jan. 12, chock-full of hard politicking and even the appearance of corruption.
Small bayou towns and parishes in Louisiana, in partnership with plaintiffs' firms, have filed dozens of lawsuits blaming ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Jan. 12, 2026, to Fox News: * * * Supreme Court Needs to Stop Louisiana Grift Against Energy Firms By William P. Barr The U.S. Supreme Court, by now all too familiar with lawfare, will consider a startling case on Monday, Jan. 12, chock-full of hard politicking and even the appearance of corruption. Small bayou towns and parishes in Louisiana, in partnership with plaintiffs' firms, have filed dozens of lawsuits blamingAmerican energy companies for coastal erosion stemming from energy production during World War II. The first of those cases reached trial this spring, with a jury in Plaquemines Parish returning a $750 million judgment against Chevron.
The conduct of these cases recalls an old problem with a clear solution. States and localities have for decades weaponized their courts to derail lawful and legitimate federal objectives.
Here, a parochial political machine is bending Louisiana law to profiteer off of the federal government's wartime energy practices. The answer is to remove these cases from Louisiana's courts and adjudicate them in a fairer forum, namely federal court.
Lawfare is an old problem in the history of the republic. During the War of 1812, pro-British commercial interests in New England inundated federal customs collectors with state law claims, an attempt to derail the hated trade embargo with the United Kingdom.
In response, Congress passed the first iteration of the federal officer removal statute.
In so doing, Congress established the principle that federal agents doing federal work ought to be shielded from local prejudice and provincial peculiarities. Here, we can think of the defendant energy companies as "federal agents" because they were fulfilling federal defense contracts under close federal supervision.
Louisiana vindicates the wisdom of this judgment, pairing interference in federal energy policy with the appearance of corruption for which the state, unfortunately, is so widely known.
As I explained in an amicus brief with Judge Michael Mukasey, the land loss lawsuits are shot through with abrupt, unexplained reversals that take on a dark aspect. For example, Louisiana's Department of Natural Resources (DNR) consistently maintained that energy production predating 1980 could not form the basis of a coastal erosion claim under a state environmental statute.
There are ample letters and public statements from the DNR to that effect. But in 2018, the DNR recanted its oft-stated position and endorsed land loss lawsuits, the state environmental statute notwithstanding.
Louisiana's governor supervises the DNR. The governor in 2018 was Jon Bell Edwards, a former trial lawyer who collected millions in campaign contributions from counsel for the plaintiffs.
Edwards's successor, Jeff Landry, was a critic of land loss claims until he wasn't. As state attorney general, Landry sued the Army Corp of Engineers over coastal erosion, consistent with the findings of researchers who maintain that leveeing the Mississippi River is the principal culprit of land loss in Louisiana.
Landry then reversed course and signed a formal agreement with the private law firms driving the land loss cases. Those same firms contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to Landry when he ran for governor in 2023.
Consider also the flip-flops of the trial judge, Judge Michael Clement. The judge initially and correctly recognized that the plain language of the state environmental statute forbade pre-1980 claims.
As such, he dismissed many claims related to pre-1980 activities. One month later, he changed his mind, ignoring the clear command of the statute and our popular sense of fair play.
As with Edwards and Landry, counsel for the land loss plaintiffs contributed thousands of dollars to Judge Clement's most recent re-election campaign (this in a parish with just 20,000 residents). Land loss lawyers play heavily in Louisiana judicial elections.
An in-state watchdog found that trial lawyers involved with coastal erosion lawsuits have run $3 million into Louisiana's judicial elections. These donations have infected every level of the judiciary, from small town courthouses to the state supreme court in New Orleans.
This systems-level crisis of integrity indicates why removal is necessary here and wise as a general matter. Louisiana's state courts are purporting to second-guess wartime energy production policies fully 80 years after the fact.
It appears they are doing so owing to improper local political alliances. This is a prime example of the concerns animating the federal officer removal statute.
Unfortunately for the good people of Louisiana, these events are of a piece with the judicial environment in their state. Louisiana courts returned 15 so-called "nuclear verdicts" totaling $10 billion between 2009 and 2023.
These outcomes create a permission structure for lawyers of the "Better Call Saul" variety. During my tenure as attorney general, federal law enforcement began investigating a gang of Louisiana lawyers and their henchmen for allegedly staging car crashes with 18-wheelers and filing bogus lawsuits against unsuspecting trucking companies.
Prosecutors ultimately charged the alleged conspirators, but not before a witness was killed.
The justices will consider these matters in greater detail at oral argument. Let us hope for a decision that rights the ship, and sends these cases back to federal court where they belong.
Read in Fox News (https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/william-barr-supreme-court-needs-stop-louisiana-grift-against-energy-firms).
* * *
William P. Barr is a distinguished fellow at Hudson Institute. His work at Hudson involves a number of policy areas, including violent crime, transnational criminal/drug organizations, and international terrorism; the restoration of federalism, separation of powers, and other constitutional principles; addressing the market power of digital platforms and their collection and use of consumer data; the promotion of free speech and diverse voices in the public square and the protection of religious liberty in the educational sphere; safeguarding US technology against foreign espionage; and promoting robust foreign intelligence collection capabilities consistent with American civil liberties.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/legal-affairs/supreme-court-needs-stop-louisiana-grift-against-energy-firms-william-barr
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: Unstable Coins - Stablecoin Regulation, Market Structure Legislation, and U.S. Security Risks
WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Jan. 12, 2026:* * *
Unstable Coins: Stablecoin Regulation, Market Structure Legislation, and U.S. Security Risks
By Taylar Rajic and Peter Dohr
The United States spent the 2010s incrementally upgrading bank-based magnetic-stripe cards with chips. Meanwhile, China leapfrogged the legacy card-based system by rolling out digital wallets and QR-code-based payment systems. Rapid diffusion of Alipay and WeChat Pay drove near-universal urban adoption. Today, those platforms exceed 1 billion ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Jan. 12, 2026: * * * Unstable Coins: Stablecoin Regulation, Market Structure Legislation, and U.S. Security Risks By Taylar Rajic and Peter Dohr The United States spent the 2010s incrementally upgrading bank-based magnetic-stripe cards with chips. Meanwhile, China leapfrogged the legacy card-based system by rolling out digital wallets and QR-code-based payment systems. Rapid diffusion of Alipay and WeChat Pay drove near-universal urban adoption. Today, those platforms exceed 1 billionmonthly users, enabling low-cost transfers and payments and largely disintermediating the banking system. The Chinese government embraced digital payments, generating economic, national security, and geopolitical dividends. Digital payments unlocked the latent potential of China's rural consumer market, alleviating mobility constraints and diversifying consumption. The Chinese government then embedded this financial activity within systems of data collection, surveillance, and state influence. The increasing international adoption of these digital payments and their extensive interoperability support the government's push for broader usage of Chinese currency. While the United States stagnated within its financial paradigm, China's proactive adoption and regulation of revolutionary financial technologies offered massive national benefits.
Today's cryptocurrencies represent a similar inflection point. As financial systems determine geopolitical leverage, sanctions enforcement, data sovereignty, and the global role of the U.S. dollar, competitiveness in this area is essential. However, in the United States, whose banking and payment systems have always been intertwined, the regulatory landscape is struggling to adjust. Concurrently, allies and adversaries alike embrace the new technologies, threatening to erode U.S. financial dominance and economic competitiveness. Without swift legislation to promote institutional adoption and mitigate financial and national security vulnerabilities, the United States risks ceding its global economic leadership while simultaneously exposing itself to perilous threats.
The GENIUS Act and Its Shortcomings
Signed into law in July 2025, the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act represents Congress's first comprehensive attempt to establish a U.S. regulatory framework for payment stablecoins--digital assets that an issuer must redeem for a fixed value. It aims to ensure stablecoin safety and stability by enhancing dependability, oversight, and transparency, without limiting prospects for continued innovation.
However, in pursuit of these aims, the act could unintentionally compromise the United States' global competitiveness. It creates regulatory fragmentation by dividing supervision between federal and state regimes, inviting a "race to the bottom" as states dilute requirements to attract issuers. The bill allows state-level regimes to differ and exempts state-issued stablecoins from the federal framework, enabling regulatory competition. Provisions upend host-state oversight and erode state authority to impose consistent standards. These gaps hinder oversight of stablecoin flows and leave the Federal Reserve and the Department of the Treasury with limited leverage.
The act leaves major gaps in stablecoin reserve composition and management. It imposes no hard liquidity, concentration, or stress-testing requirements and permits reserves in uninsured bank deposits and credit union shares. It further ties stablecoin risk to banking-sector stress, creating reciprocal exposure. These dynamics could create fire-sale patterns and turn a stablecoin run into stress on the banking system.
The act adds risk by leaving key financial details to future rulemaking. The act authorizes regulators to impose "capital buffers that are tailored to the business model and risk profile," but offers no specifics on buffer design. Inappropriate capital buffer standards could leave stablecoins "information-sensitive," prone to runs of sudden, self-reinforcing redemptions whenever doubts arise. The act also pushes the development of run-down and wind-down plans for future regulations. These flaws raise the risk that a large stablecoin issuer could become highly leveraged and poorly resolvable, precipitating a rapid, chaotic liquidation rather than orderly recapitalization or restructuring.
Together, these financial vulnerabilities create a systemic shock vector. A stablecoin run could cascade into U.S. banking stress, weakening U.S. economic performance relative to strategic competitors. Moreover, this potential for instability threatens U.S. financial system credibility, weakens U.S. agenda-setting power, complicates allied coordination, and could accelerate diversification away from U.S.-linked systems.
The act also maintains gaps that have the potential to weaken U.S. national security by allowing adversaries to influence U.S. financial infrastructure, expand gray-zone financial operations, evade sanctions, and launder stolen funds.
The act includes a pathway for foreign payment stablecoin issuers (FPSIs) but does not require rigorous screening of foreign governance structures. It delegates judgment of foreign-jurisdiction regimes to the Treasury, which has yet to finalize an oversight framework, leaving key risks unaddressed. Insufficient oversight of ultimate ownership and controlling interests might allow adversaries to influence an FPSI, creating national security risks. Moreover, if the Treasury defines comparability rules loosely, issuers will flock to the most permissive jurisdiction and still access the U.S. market.
Additionally, the act overlooks illicit finance opportunities. It imposes anti-money-laundering (AML) and counterterrorist-financing (CFT) requirements but focuses only on stablecoin issuers. Under GENIUS, the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) does not regulate digital-asset intermediaries or decentralized protocols through which digital assets like stablecoins circulate. This creates a gap that malign actors exploit. Adversarial use of stablecoins to evade sanctions has increased substantially in the last year.
Financial weaknesses and national security flaws leave the GENIUS Act an incomplete framework for stablecoin regulation with the potential to negatively impact the United States' position on the global stage.
Market Structure Legislation Flaws
In July 2025, the House passed the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, which addresses jurisdictional ambiguities between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission by categorizing digital assets into commodities, investment contracts, and stablecoins. The Responsible Financial Innovation Act (RFIA) of 2025 reflects the Senate Banking Committee's ongoing effort to develop a more comprehensive market structure that builds on the CLARITY Act.
Senator John Kennedy addressed the GENIUS Act's financial vulnerabilities in his floor remarks and stated that the banking community expects policymakers to amend digital asset market structure legislation to mitigate risks. Similarly, Senator Elizabeth Warren discussed the GENIUS Act's national security gaps in a letter to Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent, concluding that Congress has an opportunity to address risks in market structure legislation.
However, rather than alleviating GENIUS Act financial weaknesses, ongoing efforts overlook critical risks and threaten to institutionalize existing vulnerabilities.
These bills risk cementing structural financial vulnerabilities and creating space for regulatory arbitrage. The Conference of State Bank Supervisors warns that the RFIA allows "uninsured national trust companies to exercise a broad range of banking powers... while simultaneously avoiding a range of corresponding regulatory mandates." Separately, economic analysts warn the RFIA invites "issuers of traditional securities to circumvent investor protections" by creating tokens that "function like investments but avoid customary labels." The current approach imperils "investor protection, market integrity, and the credibility of the securities regulatory framework itself." This failure extends beyond digital asset markets, threatening to undermine the foundation of U.S. capital markets and the integrity of the U.S. financial system.
By failing to resolve financial vulnerabilities, these bills threaten to entrench the systemic shock vector created by the GENIUS Act. This exacerbates problems for U.S. economic competitiveness, and further undermines U.S. financial-system credibility, agenda-setting power, and prospects for allied coordination--all to the benefit of geopolitical adversaries.
These bills also risk sustaining the gaps in national security that exist in the GENIUS Act, amplifying adversaries' ability to compromise U.S. interests.
The CLARITY Act obscures the status of certain digital asset service providers (DASPs) relative to the BSA, potentially limiting the government's ability to detect, deter, and disrupt money laundering, terrorist financing, sanctions evasion, and other financial crimes. In contrast to other persistent gaps, the RFIA, as initially drafted, does mitigate this issue. It clarifies that these DASPs qualify as financial institutions under the BSA. However, it includes broad decentralized finance (DeFi)-related carveouts that limit oversight of other non-DeFi businesses and persons.
The CLARITY Act establishes a broad DeFi exclusion covering user-interface provision and DeFi system development and distribution. The RFIA fails to resolve this issue. Via definitional exclusions and functional ambiguity, it exempts transaction-intermediating and custodial platforms from basic AML/CFT safeguards.
These market structure bills also fail to enforce baseline issuer monitoring of the stablecoin ecosystem. Currently, only issuers concerned about illicit finance pay the cost to implement ecosystem monitoring services. This poses a significant threat amid rising illicit stablecoin use. Since 2024, most on-chain illicit activity has involved stablecoins. Without widespread monitoring, stablecoins will become an increasingly attractive avenue for criminal behavior.
Reinforcing this failure, these bills leave mixers and anonymity tools unaddressed. They fail to close a loophole left by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's 2024 Van Loon decision, which holds that immutable smart contracts do not constitute property. This limits the government's ability to use existing sanctions laws against such contracts used for money laundering or sanctions evasion. These mixers and anonymity tools enable state-linked adversaries to avoid detection and enforcement when using stablecoins for illicit activities, threatening U.S. national security.
Last, these market structure bills would allow crypto platforms to evade regulatory accountability by claiming they operate outside the United States. The Treasury's 2023 Illicit Finance Risk Assessment of Decentralized Finance highlights the vulnerability created by this regulatory gap. The assessment finds the most significant risk associated with virtual assets stems from "virtual asset service providers operating abroad with substantially deficient AML/CFT programs."
Rather than closing GENIUS Act national security gaps, current market structure initiatives risk elevating these threats, further enabling adversaries to impact the U.S. financial ecosystem, circumvent U.S. sanctions, and hide theft.
By compounding the GENIUS Act's financial and national security vulnerabilities, ongoing market structure efforts risk impairing the United States' ability to outcompete economic rivals and defend against adversarial efforts to jeopardize its national security, thereby destabilizing the country's geopolitical leadership.
Necessary Urgency
Regulatory uncertainty threatens a strategic reallocation of capital to jurisdictions offering more clarity, intensifying current threats to U.S. financial stability.
Disparities between the GENIUS Act, the CLARITY Act, and the RFIA have led to fragmented compliance expectations and operational uncertainties. As political divisions delay regulatory implementation, other regions will continue to establish clear frameworks and accelerate cryptocurrency adoption. This clarity could attract investors seeking a stable legislative environment, triggering capital flight risks that undermine the U.S. economy.
The European Union passed the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) in 2022, instituting uniform EU market rules for crypto assets through multiple implementation phases. The law establishes a cohesive system for licensing and supervising crypto asset service providers and stablecoin issuers, focusing on transparency, disclosure, authorization, and supervision of transactions. The framework aims to support "market integrity and financial stability" and ensure "consumers are better informed" about crypto asset risks.
Other regulatory environments have implemented similarly proactive frameworks. Singapore and Hong Kong, for example, each enforce clear and extensive market structure, monitoring, and security legislation.
These global efforts to offer clarity and confidence could easily attract investors looking to diversify away from U.S. regulatory uncertainty. This capital flight risk imposes considerable urgency on current crypto legislation initiatives. Policymakers should mitigate financial and national security vulnerabilities in existing frameworks--but it is equally crucial that they do so quickly. If Congress fails to implement necessary changes with urgency, it risks forsaking the United States' competitive edge in the global crypto arena.
Prospects for Progress
Congress retains opportunities to adjust market structure legislation to address the GENIUS Act's weaknesses. If policymakers approach this effort with recognition of the vulnerabilities in the current landscape of cryptocurrency regulation and an acceptance of the urgency with which changes are required, they can substantially strengthen the framework.
Before passing any market structure legislation, policymakers should make the following crucial changes:
* Apply AML/CFT responsibilities to digital asset service providers.
* Ensure the Treasury can impose AML obligations on DeFi when DeFi functions like a financial institution.
* Close the Van Loon sanctions loophole.
* Require all stablecoin issuers to implement risk-based and operationally feasible ecosystem-wide monitoring, as enabled by existing techniques and commercially available tools.
* Enforce Treasury oversight requirements for international crypto platforms.
* Close gaps that are creating structural financial weaknesses.
Policymakers should take additional steps to regulate stablecoins, including establishing clear liquidity and concentration requirements, a defined resolution regime, coordinated supervision, rigorous foreign-issuer screening, enhanced AML/CFT coverage, and greater transparency.
Policymakers should also acknowledge the urgent necessity of these changes to digital asset legislation to bolster U.S. economic competitiveness, reinforce U.S. national security, and uphold global standards for countering illicit finance.
* * *
Peter Dohr is a research intern with the Strategic Technologies Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Taylar Rajic is an associate fellow with the Strategic Technologies Program at CSIS.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/unstable-coins-stablecoin-regulation-market-structure-legislation-and-us-security-risks
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: How Will the Trump Administration Respond to Violent Protests in Iran?
WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Jan. 12, 2026:* * *
How Will the Trump Administration Respond to Violent Protests in Iran?
By Vali Nasr
On January 8, 2026, tens of thousands of Iranians, representing the spectrum of social and economic backgrounds, poured into the streets across the country in a singular show of force to demand an end to the Islamic Republic. Many called for a return of the monarchy. The crowds on January 8 and subsequent days have been among the largest since the 2022 Women, Life, Freedom uprising, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Jan. 12, 2026: * * * How Will the Trump Administration Respond to Violent Protests in Iran? By Vali Nasr On January 8, 2026, tens of thousands of Iranians, representing the spectrum of social and economic backgrounds, poured into the streets across the country in a singular show of force to demand an end to the Islamic Republic. Many called for a return of the monarchy. The crowds on January 8 and subsequent days have been among the largest since the 2022 Women, Life, Freedom uprising,and have exceeded those protests in intensity. Security forces have reacted forcefully, killing large numbers of protesters. There is a palpable sense that the Islamic Republic is teetering on the verge of collapse before a surging revolution.
President Trump is weighing options to intervene militarily, but that is a risky bet. Striking military sites could have little impact on crackdown on the street, and may even dissipate the protests. A broader attack targeting the security forces suppressing demonstrations would have to involve city centers and risk civilian casualties, which could in turn send protesters home. The impact of targeting Iran's leaders is also unclear: It could clear the slate of current decisionmakers similar to what the United States has pursued in Venezuela, but that may not benefit protesters,
Facing concurrent external and internal threats, the Islamic Republic is rattled, but Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has remained defiant. He still has a firm control over government and security institutions, and the state is showing the will to use deadly force to suppress the protests. In a public speech, he blamed the protests on foreign agitators, and vowed that the Islamic Republic would not retreat. His senior lieutenants have attributed crowd violence to armed terrorists under the direction of Israel and the U.S., and said protesters could be tried for the crime of "war with God," which carries the death sentence.
The energy and intensity of the protests has not subsided, and reflects the depth of seething anger that many Iranians harbor toward leadership. The majority of the population does not subscribe to the revolutionary values that it blames for the country's isolation and dire economic conditions. The protests are a fight for a future in which Iran would be a prosperous member of the international community.
Popular anger has been steadily growing since President Trump imposed maximum pressure sanctions on Iran in 2018. Government revenue has steadily declined, and shortages have proliferated, spiking inflation and unemployment. More of Iran's trade has shifted to black markets, aggravating mismanagement, corruption, and income inequality. Powerful economic networks have gained control of vast areas of the economy. In the process, most Iranians have become poorer and angrier. That was already in full display in 2022 when pursuant to the death of a young woman, Mahsa Amini, at the hands of the morality police, young Iranians sparked a mass uprising.
Despite growing popular anger, the political class and state institutions have remained tightly arrayed behind Khamenei's leadership. Iran's rulers were long confident that, thanks to the aura of regional power, and given the stakes the West had in negotiating limits to Iran's nuclear program, there would be no outside intervention to support protesters.
That all changed in fall of 2024 and summer of 2025. First, Israel battered Iran's principle regional ally and deterrence against Israel, Lebanon's Hezbollah, in summer and fall of 2024. Then, Iran lost its foothold in Syria with the fall of the Assad regime in December 2024. Those strategic setbacks opened the path for Israel to attack Iran in June 2025. During the ensuing twelve-day war, Israel killed dozens of Iranian military commanders and nuclear scientists, struck military sites, and then, along with the United States, bombed Iran's main nuclear facilities, severely damaging the program.
The Islamic Republic survived the war, but it looked battered. Its aura of power and security was punctured, and before the world and its own people, it looked vulnerable. During the war, Israel had called on Iranians to topple the Islamic Republic. The population instead rallied to the flag. That display of national unity proved consequential, but was not a reconciliation between state and society. It would not be long before popular anger would once again manifest itself.
The trigger was a calamitous deterioration of Iran's economy. According to the economist Djavad Salehi-Isfahani, between December 2024 and December 2025, the Rial had lost 84 percent of its value; 16 percent in December 2025 alone. Over that same one-year period, food prices had risen by 72 percent. On December 28, merchants angered by the collapse of the currency shuttered their shops. They were soon joined by irate crowds decrying the poor state of the economy.
The Islamic Republic has witnessed periodic episodes of economic protest dating back to the 1980s. None posed an existential threat to the regime, which may be why the government initially stood back as the most recent protests unfolded. Likely, the authorities were also conscious that cracking down could reverse the fragile entente that rallying to the flag had established between state and society during the twelve-day war.
The government's attitude started to change as protests grew larger and went beyond venting economic grievances. However, President Trump's warning that Washington was "locked and loaded" to intervene to "rescue" the protesters if the government used violence gave Tehran pause. It also put them in a quandary: let the protests continue unchecked and risk a serious challenge to the Islamic Republic, or clamp down and risk a U.S. attack. Iranian military forces were then monitoring the buildup of U.S. forces and war materiel in the Gulf, and hence took Trump's threat seriously.
On January 3, 2026, U.S. Special Forces abducted Venezuela's president. That audacious act was further proof that President Trump stood ready to use military means to break adversarial regimes. However, it soon became clear that Trump was not pursuing regime change in Venezuela; and therefore is not likely to do so in Iran either--rather, he is using protesters as pawns to escalate pressure on the Islamic Republic. He could punish Iran if it clamped down on the protests, but that operation would likely be limited.
On January 9, under the cover of an internet blackout, the Islamic Republic started its deadly crackdown. But even if Iran's rulers survive this uprising, it could prove to be a Pyrrhic victory. The bloodshed will create an unbridgeable chasm with the population. The crackdown will neither resolve Iran's debilitating economic situation nor restore its lost aura of power. The Islamic Republic is in a tightening vise from which it cannot escape.
* * *
Vali Nasr is a senior adviser (non-resident) at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-will-trump-administration-respond-violent-protests-iran
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: Everything Is Connected
WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Jan. 12, 2026:* * *
Everything Is Connected
By William Alan Reinsch
Years ago, I had the opportunity to meet with an entrepreneur who was directly involved in the creation of the VCR, only to see its manufacturing move to Asia. We kept in touch for a while, and at one point, he told me something that stuck with me: Don't forget that everything is made everywhere. That was an exaggeration, of course, but it was also a good characterization of the globally integrated economy we all live ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Jan. 12, 2026: * * * Everything Is Connected By William Alan Reinsch Years ago, I had the opportunity to meet with an entrepreneur who was directly involved in the creation of the VCR, only to see its manufacturing move to Asia. We kept in touch for a while, and at one point, he told me something that stuck with me: Don't forget that everything is made everywhere. That was an exaggeration, of course, but it was also a good characterization of the globally integrated economy we all livein. Many things are indeed made in lots of different places. More importantly, end products are increasingly the result of assembling parts from many different sources in many different countries. Automobiles and mobile devices are excellent current examples of that.
The important lesson in his comment, though, was not the globalized nature of production but the importance of connections. Today, he would probably not say that everything is made everywhere. He would say everything is connected to everything else, often in unexpected ways. That is today's point: There are always unintended consequences of economic action. Competent policymakers try to anticipate all of them and prevent the bad ones, but they rarely succeed. When I was in the government, we would issue a new export control regulation, and often, some months later, I would have a visit from someone complaining that we had put him out of business. Pointing out that the government did not intend to do that and that he had an opportunity to warn us about it in advance, because the rulemaking process had a public component, provided no comfort. Here are some other examples of unexpected downstream consequences.
The plight of U.S. farmers due to Trump's tariffs has often been reported. Most of the time, the stories focus on retaliation, usually by China, which has caused U.S. farmers to lose their export markets. More in-depth commentaries point out that a larger problem is the increased cost of machinery due to steel and aluminum tariffs and fertilizers, as due to tariffs. The newest connection was farmers' complaints about the ban on Chinese drones. It turns out that twenty-first-century farming is high tech, and drones play an important role in targeted fertilizing and irrigation. Who knew? Certainly not the government when it issued the ban.
Another result of Trump's trade policy on agriculture is increased deforestation in the Amazon region because of China's action in abandoning U.S. soybeans for Brazilian beans. Farmers, seeing an opportunity to increase their production, are burning the forest to grow more crops and provide more space for cattle grazing.
Climate change is clearly not a priority for the Trump administration, but it is well-established that clearing forest lands in the Amazon, one of the world's greatest carbon sinks, can only make climate change worse.
Moving away from trade, another intriguing example involves wolves. Some areas in the western part of the United States are reintroducing wolves into their ecosystems. This has been controversial. The wolves help control growing deer populations, but they also kill farm animals. One unexpected development is that they also play a role in reducing car crashes involving deer. Wolves, like humans, tend to follow existing paths, since that is the easiest way to get from one point to another. Those paths include roads, and we are now seeing reductions in car-deer crashes because the deer are learning to avoid roads because of the wolves. I don't think anybody anticipated that outcome.
Finally, a much-studied historical example is the impact of the U.S. interstate highway system. Originally intended for defense purposes and to facilitate long-distance travel and the movement of goods from producers (or importers) to consumers, the system had two other unforeseen results. As it was built out with rings around cities and spurs into them, it made commuting easier, which facilitated movement from city to suburbs, reducing a city's tax base, leading to a decline in services, which furthered the downward spiral. The parts of the system that went into or through cities often split communities into two, generally the less affluent ones, because land was cheaper to acquire there and the residents had less political influence.
None of this is exactly news--well, maybe the drones and wolves are--the problem of unanticipated downstream consequences is not new. That is why, over a long period of time, the government has created processes designed to ferret out possible bad results so that policymakers can take them into account when making decisions. Part of that is the use of public comment periods to give stakeholders an opportunity to lay out their concerns. Part of it is an interagency process designed to make sure possible outcomes are carefully weighed and examined so that officials have the best shot at making an informed decision. When those processes are truncated, as is happening in the current administration, the country gets poorer decisions, which often must be revised once the unintended consequences become obvious. That can often be avoided if the processes work and are populated by experienced professionals. We get rid of experience at our peril, as we are learning now.
* * *
William A. Reinsch is senior adviser and Scholl Chair emeritus with the Economics Program and Scholl Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/everything-connected
[Category: ThinkTank]