Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Manhattan Institute Issues Commentary to Real Clear Health: Did Republican Cuts Create a Hospital Crisis?
NEW YORK, April 11 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on April 10, 2026, by senior fellow Chris Pope to Real Clear Health:
* * *
Did Republican Cuts Create a Hospital Crisis?
Democrats are increasingly claiming that America's hospitals are the victims of the "largest health care cuts in history." Yet, the Medicaid reforms in last summer's One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB) did little to slow the program's inexorable growth. The hospital industry is at an unprecedented scale, and accounts for the bulk of the nation's net job growth over the past year.
House
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, April 11 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on April 10, 2026, by senior fellow Chris Pope to Real Clear Health:
* * *
Did Republican Cuts Create a Hospital Crisis?
Democrats are increasingly claiming that America's hospitals are the victims of the "largest health care cuts in history." Yet, the Medicaid reforms in last summer's One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB) did little to slow the program's inexorable growth. The hospital industry is at an unprecedented scale, and accounts for the bulk of the nation's net job growth over the past year.
HouseEnergy and Commerce Committee Democrats argue that "hospitals and clinics are closing, workers are being laid off, patients are losing insurance coverage, and states are scrambling to fill budget gaps." After only 6 months, they blame OBBB for "21 hospital closures and service reductions" and "6,440 employees laid off." The progressive organization Public Citizen claims that 446 hospitals are at-risk of closure, as a result of the legislation.
Continue reading the entire piece here at Real Clear Health (https://www.realclearhealth.com/articles/2026/04/10/did_republican_cuts_create_a_hospital_crisis_1175941.html)
* * *
Chris Pope is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Follow him on Twitter here.
* * *
Original text here: https://manhattan.institute/article/did-republican-cuts-create-a-hospital-crisis
[Category: ThinkTank]
Jamestown Foundation Posts Commentary: Procurement Documents Reveal AI Chip Workarounds
WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on April 10, 2026, by China Studies fellow Sunny Cheung in its China Brief Notes:
* * *
Procurement Documents Reveal AI Chip Workarounds
Executive Summary:
* Procurement records suggest that U.S. export controls on frontier artificial intelligence (AI) chips imposed meaningful constraints until January 2026, as institutions in the People's Republic of China's (PRC) appeared to be adapting procurement practices to preserve access rather than replacing foreign hardware with domestic alternatives.
* Tender documents
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on April 10, 2026, by China Studies fellow Sunny Cheung in its China Brief Notes:
* * *
Procurement Documents Reveal AI Chip Workarounds
Executive Summary:
* Procurement records suggest that U.S. export controls on frontier artificial intelligence (AI) chips imposed meaningful constraints until January 2026, as institutions in the People's Republic of China's (PRC) appeared to be adapting procurement practices to preserve access rather than replacing foreign hardware with domestic alternatives.
* Tender documentsfrom universities and state-linked entities show repeated efforts to obtain Nvidia H200-class computing power. Some mention H200s explicitly, others specify capabilities that can only refer to H200s, and others still obfuscate by appending politically acceptable labels such as "domestic chips" or "H20" to specifications that indicate they actually refer to H200s.
* The persistence of these workarounds indicates that despite visible progress by domestic firms such as Huawei, PRC alternatives remain insufficient for the most demanding frontier AI workloads, making continued access to U.S. hardware strategically consequential.
At Huawei's China Partner Conference 2026 in March, the company unveiled a new neural processing unit (NPU), the Atlas 350. This latest artificial intelligence (AI) accelerator card is powered by Huawei's Ascend 950PR chip, which Huawei claims can deliver 2.87 times the computing power of Nvidia's H20, marking a new stage in the commercialization of domestic AI compute (Guancha, March 21). The launch reinforced an official narrative that the country's indigenous computing stack is maturing, and that a more self-reliant, high-performance domestic compute ecosystem is beginning to take shape (People's Daily, March 11).
Public procurement records from before the U.S. government's decision in early 2026 to lift its restriction on buyers in the People's Republic of China (PRC) purchasing Nvidia's H200 chips tell a different story. Despite aggressive promotion of domestic substitution from political leaders, in recent months Chinese institutions have sought to preserve access to Nvidia's frontier hardware, indicating that U.S. export controls continue to impose meaningful constraints on PRC technology development.
Obfuscation Provides Workarounds to Procure H200s
A review of PRC tender documents reveals repeated efforts to acquire computing hardware with capabilities equal to Nvidia's highest-performance tier, the H200. Some institutions embedded in the PRC's broader AI and advanced computing research ecosystem, including Jilin University and Zhejiang University of Technology, identify the chip explicitly in their procurement documents (Zhiliao Tender Information, December 16, 2025, November 11, 2025; Jilin University, accessed April 2; Chinese Association for Artificial Intelligence, April 23, 2025).
In other cases, tendering entities do not name Nvidia directly but instead specify technical requirements that mirror the H200's performance profile. Specific references to benchmarks of 141 gigabytes (GB) of video random-access memory (VRAM)--the high-speed memory built into graphics processors that is particularly important for training AI models--are notable. This figure stands out because Nvidia's earlier flagship H100 offered 80GB of VRAM and most PRC accelerators currently deployed remain below that threshold. A requirement for 141GB of VRAM functions as a strong indicator of H200-class hardware, even when the product itself is not named (Zhiliao Tender Information, December 17, 2025; Ascend Developer Community, January 30; Nvidia, accessed April 3; Metax Tech, accessed April 3; Cambricon, accessed April 3; Moore Threads, accessed April 3).
Some institutions employ a more subtle and politically adaptive strategy. Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech) and Jiangsu University, for instance, describe procurement needs using language more consistent with domestic policy preferences, such as referring to "domestic chips". Henan University of Economics and Law, meanwhile, specifies export-compliant alternatives in its procurement documents, such as the H20. In all cases, however, the documents list technical benchmarks associated with substantially more powerful systems (Zhiliao Tender Information, November 3, 2025; November 25, 2025; December 18, 2025)./[1] Similar patterns have also appeared in tenders linked to China National Nuclear Corporation, suggesting that this strategy of obfuscation is not limited to universities alone (Zhiliao Tender Information, October 31, 2025).
Adaptation Involves Legal Gray Areas
These procurement patterns highlight a tension in Beijing's technology policy. Beijing has spent years promoting self-reliance in core technologies through policies such as "xinchuang", which pushes public sector users toward indigenous information technology products (Sina, June 20, 2025). When domestic substitutes cannot fully meet the requirements of frontier AI research, institutions appear to adapt by finding workarounds that preserve access to restricted foreign technology.
According to an interview conducted with two industry participants, compliance checks in the PRC often focus primarily on documentary consistency, such as whether contracts, invoices, and customs declarations match (Author interview, February 21). This creates room for ambiguity between politically acceptable descriptions and actual end use, allowing for plausible deniability from compliance teams and authorities.
Delivery timelines in some tenders also raise questions about the nature of the supply chain for high-performance AI hardware. The White House lifted its ban on the export of H200 chips on January 20, but the deadlines specified in some tender documents appear too short for newly sourced high-end chips to move through fully compliant export channels. This suggests that inventory is already circulating through underground networks and ready to be deployed once procurement procedures are completed.
Conclusion
The set of tender documents reviewed in this article suggest that the PRC's AI ecosystem is still reliant on Nvidia chips. Although domestic firms, and Huawei in particular, have made visible progress in AI accelerator development, foreign chips apparently continue to be preferred for the most demanding workloads (21st Century Economy, September 18, 2025). If this were not the case, procurement practices would have shifted decisively toward cheaper, domestic alternatives where stable supply is assured. If PRC actors are yet to solve the frontier chip problem and instead are attempting to work around it, this suggests that the technological gap remains real and that controls on advanced semiconductors continue to impose meaningful constraints on the PRC's technological progress, even if those constraints are uneven and imperfectly enforced.
For now, continued access to advanced U.S. chips can help PRC institutions maintain momentum until domestic alternatives mature. This fails to divert the PRC from its long-term push for self-sufficiency, and simply alleviates near-term constraints, buying time for PRC firms to develop without sacrificing progress at the technological frontier. This is critical, because time matter in AI development. More computing power enables larger models, faster iteration, and stronger research ecosystems, all of which can compound over time.
The PRC's procurement behavior therefore offers a useful empirical window into the state of the technology competition between the two global leaders. It suggests that, notwithstanding official rhetoric about self-sufficiency, U.S. frontier chips remain valuable enough that institutions continue to find workarounds to secure access to them. This evidence reflects a continuing U.S.-PRC capability gap, as well as diverging realities between Chinese indigenization interests and industry needs.
[1] Southern University of Science and Technology participate in national defense-related research programs under PRC's military-civil fusion framework (ASPI, accessed April 7).
* * *
Sunny Cheung is a Fellow for China Studies at The Jamestown Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/procurement-documents-reveal-ai-chip-workarounds/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Jamestown Foundation Issues Commentary: Belarus Offers Uzbekistan Nuclear Expertise
WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on April 10, 2026, by Anna J. Davis, fellow of Eurasia Studies and contributing editor of Eurasia Daily Monitor:
* * *
Belarus Offers Uzbekistan Nuclear Expertise
Executive Summary
* Belarus is positioning itself as a nuclear energy mentor to Uzbekistan. Uzbek delegates recently visited the Belarusian nuclear power plant to learn about workforce training systems, regulatory coordination, emergency preparedness, and the development of supporting social infrastructure associated with operating Russian designed reactors.
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on April 10, 2026, by Anna J. Davis, fellow of Eurasia Studies and contributing editor of Eurasia Daily Monitor:
* * *
Belarus Offers Uzbekistan Nuclear Expertise
Executive Summary
* Belarus is positioning itself as a nuclear energy mentor to Uzbekistan. Uzbek delegates recently visited the Belarusian nuclear power plant to learn about workforce training systems, regulatory coordination, emergency preparedness, and the development of supporting social infrastructure associated with operating Russian designed reactors.
* Belarus's opportunities to share its nuclear experience lie with countries that are partnered with Russia's state-owned nuclear corporation, Rosatom, as Belarus itself depends on Russian nuclear technology and fuel services for its domestic nuclear energy capabilities.
* As Belarus seeks to convert its dependence on Russia into influence and relevance, it is balancing a fine line that Moscow may interpret as interference and a challenge to its dominant position as a nuclear supplier.
On April 7, Belarus and Uzbekistan announced plans to deepen cooperation on civilian nuclear energy. Uzbek officials visited the Belarusian Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) in Astravets, where their Belarusian counterparts presented the plant's infrastructure, training systems, emergency response procedures, technological processes, and operations associated with the plant's Russian-designed reactors (Belarusian NPP, April 8). The visit also included the city of Astravets itself, so Uzbek delegates could study how Belarus developed a satellite city to support nuclear workers and their families. The visit was part of Belarus's broader attempts to remain useful within Russia dominated nuclear networks without challenging Moscow's place in the industry. Belarus has been working to leverage its nuclear experience as a nuclear mentor for some time. The surge in new nuclear development across the region, however, has opened new opportunities for Minsk to deliver practical value while reinforcing its relevance irrespective of Russia.
Uzbekistan's outreach to Belarus coincides with ongoing nuclear energy development back home. Uzbekistan has partnered with Russia's state-owned nuclear corporation, Rosatom, to construct the country's first NPP, which will include two VVER-1000 reactors and two RITM-200N small modular reactors (SMRs) (see EDM, October 8, 2025; World Nuclear News, October 10, 2025). On March 24, initial concrete works on an SMR containment building began at the site (Uzatom, March 24).
The Uzbek delegation to Astravets proposed inviting Belarusian nuclear specialists to participate in the construction of the NPP (Gazeta; Telegram/@uzatom_info, April 8). Uzbekistan's ambassador to Belarus, Rakhmatulla Nazarov, stated that Tashkent is interested in Belarus's experience in constructing and operating an NPP and in developing the necessary infrastructure for a city such as Astravets (UZ Daily, March 10). Azim Akhmedkhadzhaev, head of Uzbekistan's nuclear energy agency Uzatom, echoed this position, saying that Uzbekistan aims to study Belarus's experience and collaborate with Belarusian specialists (Belarusian NPP, April 8). Belarusian expertise centers on lessons learned from being new to civilian nuclear technology and is therefore intended to complement and extend Russian expertise rather than compete with it.
Minsk has always focused on the responsibility, skills, and agency it gains from nuclear as a "high-tech" domestic energy source. The technology and fuel supply, however, remain dependent on Russia (Belarusian NPP, May 3, 2013). Belarusian President Alyaksandr Lukashenka recently expressed interest in constructing a second NPP with Russia, but said Belarus would build the plant with its own specialists and Russia would only provide the reactor (BelTA, March 14). Lukashenka also suggested that Belarus could export electricity from the plant to Russia (BelTA, March 14).
Belarus's experience offers tangible benefits to countries such as Uzbekistan. As a first time nuclear operator, Belarus developed the regulatory capacity, workforce training systems, and institutional coordination required to bring civilian nuclear power online. This recent experience allows Belarus to serve as a practical reference point for Uzbekistan as another Rosatom client navigating the early stages of nuclear adoption.
Belarus has sought to share this nuclear newcomer experience with other countries, in addition to Uzbekistan, that are constructing or looking to construct new civilian nuclear technology in partnership with Russia. Minsk has been seeking to gain influence in Hungary's civil nuclear development since at least 2020 (President of Belarus, June 5, 2020). The two countries signed a roadmap in 2025 to deepen nuclear energy cooperation, based on their mutual experience with Rosatom-designed VVER reactors (BelTA, May 22, 2025). Hungary has contracted Rosatom to construct two new reactors at Hungary's Paks II NPP and also recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the United States to purchase U.S. nuclear fuel and potentially cooperate on SMR technology (Hungary Today, February 16; Nuclear Engineering International, February 23).
Belarus has also offered Kazakhstan support in developing nuclear energy since at least 2024 (BelTA, August 23, 2024). In December 2025, Minsk and Astana signed a memorandum of understanding focused on nuclear safety regulation and knowledge exchange (Government of Belarus, December 16, 2025; Kazakhstan Today, December 17, 2025). Kazakhstan selected Rosatom in June 2025 to lead an international consortium to construct the country's first NPP since Soviet times (see EDM, July 15, 2025). Kazakhstan has also selected China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) to construct second and third NPPs (see EDM, July 21, 2025; Sputnik Kazakhstan, July 31, 2025).
Questions remain surrounding Belarus's cooperation with the People's Republic of China (PRC) in nuclear energy. The PRC is ranked second to Russia in global nuclear reactor exports (Friedman, Nuclear Energy: Boom, Bust, and Emerging Renaissance, July 3, 2025). Minsk has expressed interest in cooperating with the PRC in nuclear energy and grid infrastructure, and delegations from China National Nuclear Power Company and Jiangsu Nuclear Power Corporation have visited the Belarusian NPP in the past (see EDM, March 5, 2012; Belarus Segodnya, September 20, 2023; BelTA, September 20, 2023, October 7, 2025).
Meaningful Belarus-PRC nuclear projects have not yet materialized, likely because Belarus is reluctant of Russia perceiving it as competing in areas where it holds nuclear influence. Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Hungary, in contrast, represent low risk avenues for cooperation that allow Minsk to raise and expand its nuclear profile without challenging Russia. As Belarus's nuclear profile-raising is constrained to countries partnering with Russia on new nuclear development, Minsk has either decided to avoid collaborating with Rosatom's competitors or realized its nuclear expertise, and thereby, its relevance in this field, remains bound to Russia. Pushing beyond these constraints would require risks Minsk has so far been unwilling to take.
* * *
Anna J. Davis is Fellow of Eurasia Studies at the Jamestown Foundation and a contrinuting editor of Eurasia Daily Monitor.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/belarus-offers-uzbekistan-nuclear-expertise/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center Issues InfluenceWatch Wrapup on April 10, 2026
WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following InfluenceWatch wrapup on April 10, 2026, by senior research analyst Robert Stilson:
* * *
InfluenceWatch, a project of Capital Research Center, is a comprehensive and ever-evolving compilation of our research into the numerous advocacy groups, foundations, and donors working to influence the public policy process. The website offers transparency into these influencers' funding, motives, and connections while providing insight often neglected by other watchdog groups.
The information compiled in InfluenceWatch gives news
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following InfluenceWatch wrapup on April 10, 2026, by senior research analyst Robert Stilson:
* * *
InfluenceWatch, a project of Capital Research Center, is a comprehensive and ever-evolving compilation of our research into the numerous advocacy groups, foundations, and donors working to influence the public policy process. The website offers transparency into these influencers' funding, motives, and connections while providing insight often neglected by other watchdog groups.
The information compiled in InfluenceWatch gives newsoutlets and other interested parties research to use in reporting on significant topics that are often overlooked by the American public.
CRC is pleased to present some of the most significant additions to InfluenceWatch in the past week:
* Pivotal Philanthropies Momentum Foundation (also known as the Rosefinch Foundation) is one of several large private foundations that exist under the Pivotal philanthropic and advocacy umbrella controlled by Melinda French Gates. In 2024, the foundation received $982,228,982 from Bill Gates as part of a $12.5 billion philanthropic separation agreement between the two, who were divorced in 2021.
* Brian Acton is an entrepreneur and philanthropist who co-founded the mobile messaging app WhatsApp, which was sold to Facebook in 2014. Along with his wife Tegan, he subsequently established a philanthropic network called Wildcard Giving, which consists of Sunlight Giving, Acton Family Giving, and Solidarity Giving. Sunlight Giving is a private foundation that supports Silicon Valley children and families who live in poverty. Acton Family Giving is a donor-advised fund housed at the Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund that supports initiatives personally connected to the Actons. Solidarity Giving is a donor-advised fund also housed at Fidelity that supports left-leaning sociopolitical initiatives.
* Biomimicry Institute is a Montana-based environmental group dedicated to biomimicry--the practice of copying nature's designs--with a particular focus on climate change and biodiversity loss. In 2024, it reported total revenues of over $3.9 million. Its funders have included the Laudes Foundation and the VF Foundation.
* Save Bristol Bay is an environmental group that opposes the proposed Pebble Mine project in southwestern Alaska, arguing that it would endanger the salmon fishery in nearby Bristol Bay. It is a project of Trout Unlimited, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that reported over $83.4 million in total 2024 revenues.
* BreakThrough News (BTN) is a far-left nonprofit media outlet located in New York City. It produces content that is broadly critical of the United States and supportive of left-wing authoritarian regimes, such as those governing China, Cuba, and Venezuela. Its editor-in-chief Ben Becker and host/producer Eugene Puryear are both founding members of the communist Party for Socialism and Liberation. BreakThrough News operates out of the same building as the People's Forum, a far-left activist group that has reportedly received funding from pro-China donor Neville Roy Singham.
* * *
Robert Stilson, Senior Research Analyst
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/influencewatch-friday-april-ten/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: China's High-Tech Drive in 10 Charts
WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on April 10, 2026, by Scott Kennedy, senior adviser and Trustee Chair in Chinese Business and Economics:
* * *
China's High-Tech Drive in 10 Charts
Introduction
Over the past few decades, China's high-tech drive has made enormous yet uneven progress, both in general and within specific industries. These advances have directly translated into enhanced international power and influence for China. The United States and like-minded countries need to respond pragmatically to maximize the opportunities
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on April 10, 2026, by Scott Kennedy, senior adviser and Trustee Chair in Chinese Business and Economics:
* * *
China's High-Tech Drive in 10 Charts
Introduction
Over the past few decades, China's high-tech drive has made enormous yet uneven progress, both in general and within specific industries. These advances have directly translated into enhanced international power and influence for China. The United States and like-minded countries need to respond pragmatically to maximize the opportunitiesand minimize the risks resulting from these developments. This commentary draws on analysis first presented in my recent CSIS report, The Power of Innovation: The Strategic Value of China's High-Tech Drive.
1. China's Innovative Capacity Has Dramatically Increased
China's ranking in the Global Innovation Index (GII), the gold standard for cross-national innovation metrics, has risen substantially over the last two decades. China now ranks tenth overall among 139 tracked countries and third in the Asia-Pacific, behind only Singapore and South Korea and just ahead of Japan. Over the last decade China has distanced itself from developing countries such as India and Brazil. The shift in China's position is the result of both government actions and corporate behavior. The central government and localities have invested heavily to strengthen the various components of the country's innovation ecosystem, implemented industrial policy targeted at specific sectors, and used China's size to attract high-tech foreign investment and diffuse their products to large markets at home and abroad. But government policy does not deserve all the credit. Government initiatives occasionally do not pan out, and oftentimes Chinese businesses have been successful in spite of government policies and then only endorsed by authorities after the fact.
2. China Surpassed the United States in R&D Spending
Chinese R&D spending has risen dramatically over the last quarter century in both absolute and relative terms. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), China's spending rose from $32.90 billion (in purchasing power parity terms) in 2000 to $1.03 trillion in 2024, moving China slightly ahead of the U.S. total of $1.01 trillion. By 2025, China's R&D spending reached 2.7 percent of GDP, which is identical to the overall average for OECD members. The United States and China still differ substantially in the sources of R&D funding, with China relying much more heavily on government outlays and the United States relying more on corporate spending.
3. China Exhibits Strong Innovation but Weak Institutions
The GII is composed of 78 individual measures grouped into five "input" and two "output" categories. China's ranking varies widely across these various measures. China is ahead of the United States in infrastructure as well as knowledge and technology outputs; slightly behind in business sophistication, human capital and research, and creative outputs; and further behind in market sophistication and institutions. China's weak institutional score is dragged down by low marks for regulatory quality and rule of law, and its mediocre market sophistication score is a reflection of limited microfinance, a small venture capital market, and high applied tariffs.
4. China's Pharmaceutical Industry Is Growing Rapidly
A long history of scandals and weak protection of intellectual property (IP) makes the pharmaceutical industry the biggest surprise among China's sectoral successes. China has ramped up clinical trials, including for both domestically created novel drugs and for generic candidates first developed elsewhere. In addition, as others have shown, China is now the source of 30 percent of new innovative drugs produced globally. The core source of this sectoral success is human talent. Most of China's pharma start-ups are led and staffed by experts who studied in the West and worked in leading pharmaceutical firms before returning home. These individuals carry with them strong research skills and deep familiarity with drug discovery and regulatory approval processes.
5. China Has Struggled to Produce Commercial Aircraft
In contrast to pharma, EVs, and other successes, China's efforts at making its own commercial aircraft should be counted so far as a failure. The Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China (COMAC) finally delivered its first narrow-body airliner, the C919, in late 2022, but it has been slow to ramp up production. COMAC did deliver 15 C919s in 2025, but that was far below its original target of 75 for the year and far fewer than comparable aircraft coming from Airbus or Boeing. Equally important, almost every critical system in the C919 is from the United States, Europe, or Japan; China's efforts at localization have gone slowly. COMAC has begun planning for a wide-body plane, the C929, but it's quite possible this plane will never reach markets. Why has it been so hard? Commercial aircraft are amazingly complicated, state-owned enterprises (SOEs) like COMAC are renowned for their lack of transparency and poor coordination skills, and certification of commercial planes and their components is led by regulators in the United States and Europe. The United States and Europe are likely to maintain, and even extend, their advantage going forward.
6. China's Semiconductor Industry Is Advancing at the Low End
China's efforts in semiconductors have yielded quite mixed results. For decades Chinese industrial policies for semiconductors generated little progress, with continued dependence on foreign suppliers for both chips and chip equipment. In the last five years, there has been a gradual shift, with China seeing progress in the development of materials, the fabrication of larger-node chips, and assembly, packaging, and testing (ATP). Less visible in the macro numbers is recent progress in memory and GPU chips used for AI. That said, firms from the United States, Taiwan, the Netherlands, Japan, and the United Kingdom still dominate the commanding heights of the semiconductor industry, with leads in chip design, advanced-node manufacturing, and semiconductor manufacturing equipment. China is likely to continue to make strides, at very high cost, but it is highly unlikely that China will become highly dominant in semiconductors, let alone entirely self-reliant.
7. Military-Civil Fusion Is a Priority but Receives Limited Direct Funding
China's military-civil fusion (MCF) initiative, which aims to direct civilian technologies and commercial firms to support China's military modernization, has been trumpeted by China's leadership and even written into the Chinese Communist Party's constitution. MCF has also attracted enormous attention from the United States and other Western governments and is one reason for the expansion of Western export controls and other restrictions. Surprisingly, though, MCF's actual budget is incredibly small. From 2012 to 2020, China's central and regional governments created over 80 specialized MCF funds, but these funds cumulatively totaled only $108.5 billion over that period. This is far less than China spent over the same period on its overall military budget (either official or estimated), government guidance funds for other sectors, or the value of initial public offerings on China's stock markets. Even the R&D budget of a single company, Huawei, was almost double the amount of all MCF funds during this period.
8. The Majority of AI-Related Contracts Go to Commercial Companies
A critical role of MCF is to act as a bridge that connects companies that produce standard commercial products and dual-use technologies with the various parts of the People's Liberation Army (PLA). The PLA uses platforms such as the Military Procurement Network (jundui caigouwang, to issue bids and announce results. Georgetown University's Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET) created a database of almost 3,000 AI-related contracts awarded by the PLA in 2023 and 2024. They found that over 70 percent of companies that won two or more AI-related contacts were "nontraditional vendors"--typically commercial AI companies such as iFlyTek Digital, PIESAT, NovaSky, JOUAV, and Nanjing Huage Information Technology. They also found that 11 of the top 15 successful bidders were SOEs and other organizations that regularly engage with the PLA.
9. China Plays a Central Role in Mobile Broadband Standards Efforts
The growing technological capabilities of Chinese companies and research organizations has been the foundation for the country becoming more influential in the setting of international technical standards. One of the key standards bodies for mobile broadband is 3GPP, a multi-stakeholder consortium that has played a central role in setting the detailed technical specifications for cellular communications since the organization's establishment in the late 1990s, when third-generation (3G) standards were being developed. Chinese experts have gone from being passive observers to active leaders, heading more of 3GPP's working groups than representatives from any other country. Serving as chair or vice chair does not afford enormous power, but it reflects the growing consensus that China is a core player in many technical fields.
10. China Has Achieved Leadership in 5G Mobile Broadband
Representatives from Chinese firms not only show up to standards meetings in large numbers, increasingly hold leadership positions, and put forward many proposals, but the number of accepted contributions from Chinese sources has also risen dramatically. There may be some politics at play, but standards organizations such as 3GPP are highly technical--proposals that are highly deficient or technically inferior generally do not get accepted. Figure 10 shows how significant Chinese contributors have become, with Huawei having become the top single contributor in terms of number of contributions and three other Chinese organizations appearing among the top 10. At the same time, experts also note that this data may somewhat overstate Chinese contributions, as traditional telecommunications organizations in the United States and Europe still have enormous influence over the core elements of 5G-related technologies, a situation not captured in the raw figures.
Conclusion
China's technological progress is unmistakable, in general and in specific industries, but it is also uneven. There have been tremendous strides, but also great waste and failures, such that China's economic growth is likely to continue to stagnate and decline. This record points to three policy takeaways for the United States. First, to the extent the United States utilizes industrial policy, it should target areas where China has been most disruptive, such as EVs and semiconductors, and focus on innovating new leapfrog technologies, not replicating Chinese innovations or simply expanding manufacturing capacity. Second, a policy of consistent decoupling will not serve the United States well. Instead, it should pursue a strategy of "calibrated coupling," alternatively reducing connectivity where necessary and maintaining vigilant connectivity where appropriate, thereby maximizing the economic and national security benefits and minimizing the risks from the relationship. And third, the United States will need to strengthen coordination and cooperation with other like-minded countries that are technology leaders as well as with developing countries in the Global South. Unilateral efforts, by contrast, are highly likely to slow American innovation and leave the United States isolated.
This commentary is made possible by the generous support from the Smith Richardson Foundation.
* * *
Scott Kennedy is senior adviser and trustee chair in Chinese Business and Economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-high-tech-drive-10-charts
[Category: ThinkTank]
American Action Forum Issues Commentary: Tracker - The Federal Reserve's Balance Sheet Assets
WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on April 10, 2026, by Financial Services Policy Director Thomas Kingsley:
* * *
Tracker: The Federal Reserve's Balance Sheet Assets
Introduction
This tracker follows the Federal Reserve's (Fed) total consolidated assets, held on its balance sheet, as the best indicator of the Fed's direct intervention in the economy.
Context
The Fed's dual mandate requires it to ensure both stable prices and maximum employment. The traditional tool the Fed uses to accomplish these goals is the adjustment of the federal funds
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on April 10, 2026, by Financial Services Policy Director Thomas Kingsley:
* * *
Tracker: The Federal Reserve's Balance Sheet Assets
Introduction
This tracker follows the Federal Reserve's (Fed) total consolidated assets, held on its balance sheet, as the best indicator of the Fed's direct intervention in the economy.
Context
The Fed's dual mandate requires it to ensure both stable prices and maximum employment. The traditional tool the Fed uses to accomplish these goals is the adjustment of the federal fundsrate, the short-term interest rate that determines how much it costs for banks to lend to each other overnight. The 2007-2008 financial crisis, however, demonstrated that even lowering the interest rate to zero was considered insufficient to shore up economies in freefall, and the Fed turned to more unusual tactics. One of these measures was what the Fed refers to as "large-scale asset purchases," which is more commonly known as "quantitative easing." Under this process, the Fed enters the market to buy securities, typically mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and Treasuries, injecting both capital and liquidity into the market. This approach is not without risks - for the first time in its history, the Fed is regulator, supervisor, and now participant in the economy.
The development of quantitative easing as a go-to tool for the Fed in times of crisis has led to an unprecedented focus on one of its traditionally unremarkable aspects - the Fed total assets. Just as with any other firm, securities that the Fed purchases are considered assets and therefore are represented on the Fed's balance sheet. This therefore is the most reflective guide of the state of quantitative easing and, by extension, the degree to which the Fed has deemed it necessary to intervene in the economy.
Each week, the Federal Reserve publishes its balance sheet, typically on Wednesday afternoon around 4:30 p.m.
As of April 8, the Fed's assets stand at $6.7 trillion, up more than $18 billion from the prior week but down $33 billion from a year ago.
Sources:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WALCL
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TREAST
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WSHOMCB
* * *
Thomas Kingsley is the Director of Financial Services Policy at the American Action Forum.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/tracker-the-federal-reserves-balance-sheet/
[Category: Think Tank]
America First Policy Institute Issues Commentary: Proclaiming Christ in the Public Square
WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following commentary on April 10, 2026, by Faith Engagement Director Daniel Trippie:
* * *
Proclaiming Christ in the Public Square
Two years ago, the Biden administration chose to mark the holiest day in the Christian calendar by celebrating trans visibility. In contrast, this year, Secretary Rollins boldly acknowledged the true meaning of Easter in a message to the Department of Agriculture. Secretary Rubio posted a thoughtful reel celebrating Christ's glorious resurrection, and Secretary Hegseth shared from Luke 24:6, declaring,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following commentary on April 10, 2026, by Faith Engagement Director Daniel Trippie:
* * *
Proclaiming Christ in the Public Square
Two years ago, the Biden administration chose to mark the holiest day in the Christian calendar by celebrating trans visibility. In contrast, this year, Secretary Rollins boldly acknowledged the true meaning of Easter in a message to the Department of Agriculture. Secretary Rubio posted a thoughtful reel celebrating Christ's glorious resurrection, and Secretary Hegseth shared from Luke 24:6, declaring,"He is not here, but is risen!"
However, some have expressed outrage that our national leaders are making explicitly Christian declarations in their public offices. While generic invocations to a higher power may be deemed acceptable by some, there are those who argue that there should be no public visibility for the 64% of Americans who celebrate the God who resurrected from the dead.
Nevertheless, those who wish for Christians to remain silent may not fully understand how Christ's death and resurrection have shaped the foundation of a free society.
Consider what happened at Calvary.
The death of Jesus Christ is the most profound expression of love known to humankind. On the cross, Christ's love compelled Him to lay down His life for others, offering the highest example of self-sacrifice. This vision of love inspires those in the military to risk their lives to protect our freedom, awakens first responders to serve neighbors in need, and motivates families to adopt vulnerable children. Christ's self-sacrifice shapes a people's vision to live for something greater than themselves.
Furthermore, Christ's resurrection is the ultimate declaration of freedom. The resurrection of Jesus ensures that individuals can be freed from the oppressive bondage of shame, guilt, and sin. It guarantees that freedom from death is possible and that life everlasting is available. Christ's resurrection provides society with a structure of freedom that allows all people to flourish--even granting the freedom not to believe.
Importantly, the freedom established in Christ's resurrection is not the license to do whatever one desires, but the freedom to do what one ought. Belief in the resurrection instills the self-restraint necessary to sustain a healthy society and prevents it from self-destruction through vice or the pursuit of fleeting pleasures at the expense of lasting virtue. This freedom gives our nation the concept of ordered liberty, which protects us from descending into anarchy or tyranny.
Finally, the Christian faith requires a personal choice: to accept or deny the resurrection. This very reality is why Christ's resurrection forms the basis of religious freedom. The Christian faith is strong enough to allow for spirited disagreement, as evidenced by the responses to our cabinet secretaries' bold confessions. There are no firings, no shaming, no retaliation for disagreement --the resurrection of Jesus Christ is powerful enough to give even dissenters a voice.
Thus, we are proud of Secretary Rollins and our other cabinet members for boldly proclaiming the event that gives freedom and order to all realms--both seen and unseen (Colossians 1:15-17).
* * *
Daniel Trippie, Ph.D., Director for Faith Engagement
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/proclaiming-christ-in-the-public-square
[Category: ThinkTank]
