Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Manhattan Institute Issues Commentary to Washington Post: In NYC Schools, Suspensions Are Down. Why Are Assaults Rising?
NEW YORK, May 27 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on May 26, 2026, by adjunct fellow Jennifer Weber to the Washington Post:
* * *
In NYC Schools, Suspensions Are Down. Why Are Assaults Rising?
The city's public schools prefer restorative justice. But the results don't add up.
*
During the first half of this school year, New York City public school suspension rates dropped. Yet over the same period, assaults inside schools rose.
A spokesperson for the city's education department pointed to the decline in suspensions as evidence that restorative justice
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, May 27 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on May 26, 2026, by adjunct fellow Jennifer Weber to the Washington Post:
* * *
In NYC Schools, Suspensions Are Down. Why Are Assaults Rising?
The city's public schools prefer restorative justice. But the results don't add up.
*
During the first half of this school year, New York City public school suspension rates dropped. Yet over the same period, assaults inside schools rose.
A spokesperson for the city's education department pointed to the decline in suspensions as evidence that restorative justice-- the school system's favored disciplinary method, emphasizing reconciliation and communication -- is working. But the contradiction suggests that suspension metrics do not capture what is happening in classrooms.
This spring, the city reported that suspensions fell 8.3 percent during the first half of the school year, compared with the same period last year. The most serious suspensions, reserved for the severest offenses, fell by 21.6 percent.
But during that same period, arrests of those under 21 for felony assaults inside city public schools during school hours rose 20 percent, from 28 to 34 incidents, according to data from the New York Police Department's school safety division.
These incidents include standard felony assaults, assaults on children, hate crimes, gang assaults -- the term for assaults involving multiple attackers -- and strangulation.
Continue reading the entire piece here at The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/05/26/nyc-schools-suspensions-are-down-why-are-assaults-rising)
* * *
Jennifer Weber is an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
* * *
Original text here: https://manhattan.institute/article/in-nyc-schools-suspensions-are-down-why-are-assaults-rising
[Category: ThinkTank]
Jamestown Foundation Posts Commentary: Georgian Dream Creates New Body to Monitor Public Expression
WASHINGTON, May 27 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on May 26, 2026, by Beka Chedia, professor of political science for the independent research institute Varieties of Democracy in the Political Science Department at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, and a political scientist from Tbilisi, Georgia, in the foundation's Eurasia Daily Monitor:
* * *
Georgian Dream Creates New Body to Monitor Public Expression
Executive Summary:
* Georgia's ruling Georgian Dream party announced the creation of a special division to monitor public communication and prosecute hate speech
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 27 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on May 26, 2026, by Beka Chedia, professor of political science for the independent research institute Varieties of Democracy in the Political Science Department at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, and a political scientist from Tbilisi, Georgia, in the foundation's Eurasia Daily Monitor:
* * *
Georgian Dream Creates New Body to Monitor Public Expression
Executive Summary:
* Georgia's ruling Georgian Dream party announced the creation of a special division to monitor public communication and prosecute hate speechon May 18, adding to fears that the government is institutionalizing censorship and expanding control over dissent and online criticism.
* Critics, including human rights groups and even clergy members, warn that new laws criminalizing insults against officials enable arbitrary enforcement against journalists, activists, and opposition figures and threaten freedom of expression.
* Evolving censorship and surveillance in Georgia increasingly resemble People's Republic of China-style internet controls, raising concerns that intensified repression could deepen polarization and spur new political resistance within Georgian society.
On May 18, Georgian State Minister for Coordination of Law Enforcement Agencies Mamuka Mdinaradze announced the creation of a special body within the Georgian Ministry of Internal Affairs. This dedicated division will monitor "public communication" and ensure that hate, hostility, and insults are not spread in society. The Georgian government explains the initiative is necessary "to protect the public environment from aggressive rhetoric and toxic communication" (Facebook/GDMamukaMdinaradze, May 18). On May 22, Sputnik Georgia reported on the creation of the Council for Monitoring Russophobia in Georgia. The council says it intends to "document cases of alleged disinformation about Russia, distortion of historical events, as well as discrimination based on language or ethnicity." The monitoring will cover public statements, publications, and the actions of individuals and legal entities. A group of lawyers is also being established within the council to provide legal assessments of identified cases and prepare appeals when necessary (Sputnik Georgia, May 22). This is just the latest step the ruling Georgian Dream government is taking to control the Georgian population, bringing the country farther down its authoritarian path.
This idea immediately provoked a strong reaction from human rights defenders. Chair of the Georgian Young Lawyers' Association, Tamar Oniani, stated that this is not simply about combating hate speech but about creating an institutional mechanism to control dissent and criticism of the government. According to critics, this effectively creates a body for censorship and the restriction of freedom of expression (Publika.ge, May 18). Oniani also directed attention to a case law of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which politicians and public officials must tolerate a significantly higher level of criticism than ordinary citizens. Therefore, attempts to provide additional legal protection against harsh criticism are seen as a threat to freedom of expression (Facebook.com/tato.oniani.756, May 18).
In February 2025, an article was added to the Georgian Code of Administrative Offenses allowing citizens to be held accountable for "insulting" public officials (Legislative Herald of Georgia, February 6, 2025). The relevant legal provisions already exist, and a new mechanism is now being introduced to ensure their more effective implementation. The introduction of such a requirement into the code, however, was sharply criticized by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). According to the ODIHR, these norms are formulated too broadly and allow for arbitrary interpretation, including vague and subjective concepts such as "verbal insults" and "other insulting behavior" (ODIHR, November 12, 2025). This creates a risk of arbitrary enforcement against journalists, activists, and the opposition.
Under the law, initiating an administrative case previously required the injured party to file a complaint. In 2025, many civil activists, journalists, and opposition politicians were fined large sums for allegedly insulting public officials after representatives of the ruling Georgian Dream party had filed lawsuits (Radio Tavisupleba, June 13, 2025).
According to statements from Georgian Dream representatives, the creation of the special division will mean that filing a complaint will no longer be required. From now on, this special division within the Ministry of Internal Affairs will conduct regular monitoring of social media and other media outlets. If such a violation is detected, the alleged offender will automatically be brought to court as a defendant. Critics of the government are concerned that the new agency will primarily focus on monitoring and controlling social networks, especially Facebook, which is the most active platform for political activity in Georgia (Netgazeti.ge, May 19).
According to the Code of Administrative Offenses, as an alternative measure, a court may impose administrative detention for up to two months (Legislative Herald of Georgia, February 6, 2025). As the newly established agency for monitoring and controlling expressions gains momentum, concerns are growing in Georgia that the number of prisoners in the country could increase. This comes despite Georgia already ranking among the leading countries in Europe in terms of incarceration rates. According to data updated on May 18, Georgia ranks fourth among European countries in prisoners per 100,000 people, with 232 prisoners per 100,000 people (Council of Europe, May 18).
Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze justified the creation of the new body as a national task. He claims that it protects the country from attempts to artificially impose polarization that, according to him, originates abroad and is based on a pseudo-liberal ideology, aimed at sowing hatred in society (1tv.ge, May 18). On May 19, Kobakhidze additionally assured the public that the new structure would "operate in accordance with international standards of freedom of expression" (Netgazeti.ge, May 19). Within the country's ruling elite, the legalization of what critics call censorship is essentially being justified on the grounds of national security. Georgian Speaker of Parliament Shalva Papuashvili claims that methods involving hate speech are being used to influence Georgia's domestic politics and are allegedly borrowed from the manuals of foreign intelligence services, and notes that "hate speech is encouraged from Brussels" (Interpressnews, May 18).
The controversy surrounding the creation of the new body has revealed the gradual and unexpected emergence of a relatively independent actor within Georgia's political landscape, in the form of certain representatives of the Georgian Orthodox Church (GOC). This process has become especially noticeable amid growing discussions about the future balance of influence within the GOC following the declining public role of late Catholicos-Patriarch Ilia II. Whereas in previous years many influential clerics largely refrained from publicly criticizing the authorities, some members of the clergy are now becoming increasingly vocal in political and social debates.
One of the first high-ranking clerics to publicly criticize the initiative was Zenon Iarajuli, a member of the Holy Synod. According to Bishop Zenon, there is a danger that the fight against hate speech could "gradually turn into a mechanism for controlling public discourse and consciousness, which would ultimately damage both freedom and the foundations of democratic coexistence and spiritual culture" (Facebook/zenon.iarajuli, May 19). The bishop also stressed that for the GOC, both hatred and humiliation of human dignity, as well as restrictions on freedom of expression, are equally unacceptable. Concerns over the possible transformation of hate speech regulation into an instrument of political control are now being voiced not only by human rights organizations and the opposition, but also by parts of the conservative clergy traditionally perceived as more loyal to the ruling party.
Local media suspect that Georgian Dream has borrowed methods from the People's Republic of China's (PRC) Cyberspace Administration--often referred to as the PRC's "internet censor"--to suppress dissent under the pretext of combating "hate speech." In April, Zhuang Rongwen, the director of the PRC's Cyberspace Administration, visited both Georgia and Azerbaijan (Radio Tavisupleba, April 24). According to official reports, Zhuang arrived in Georgia to discuss cooperation in developing the digital economy, cybersecurity, and artificial intelligence (Georgian Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development, April 21). Local media, however, link the visit specifically to Georgian Dream's alleged plans to introduce PRC-style internet censorship methods (Radio Tavisupleba, April 24). Concerns stem from existing experience, as in recent years, Georgian law enforcement agencies have increasingly used PRC surveillance technologies, including facial-recognition-equipped video surveillance systems, to identify and track demonstrators. The Georgian authorities have used such technologies to identify activists participating in protests for subsequent prosecution (Facebook/monitorstudio, February 20, 2025).
On May 18, Georgian media reported that Georgian Dream is once again tightening the regulation of broadcasters. Last year, under amendments to the Law on Broadcasting, media companies were prohibited from receiving direct or indirect funding from foreign sources. Now, the Communications Commission will gain the authority to request information on financial transfers involving individuals who may directly or indirectly fund media service providers and video-sharing platforms (Interpressnews, May 18).
The introduction of new restrictive norms, rather than the declared goal of reducing polarization, may lead to an expansion of administrative control over public communication and increased pressure on critical speech in Georgia. At the same time, it may produce the opposite effect for Georgian Dream--heightening social tensions and encouraging the emergence of new, less predictable centers of influence. Noticeable activation of certain representatives of the clergy, who are beginning to act as a more independent political voice, is filling the emerging vacuum in the public sphere.
* * *
Dr. Beka Chedia is a political scientist from Tbilisi, Georgia. He is currently a professor of political science and a Tbilisi-based Country Expert (Georgia) for the independent research institute Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) at the Department of Political Science of the University of Gothenburg, in Sweden.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/georgian-dream-creates-new-body-to-monitor-public-expression/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: Harvard is Right to Cap A Grades
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, May 27 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on May 26, 2026, by policy fellow Josiah Padley:
* * *
Harvard is right to cap A grades
In a decision a long time in the making, nearly 70 percent of Harvard's faculty has just voted to limit A grades in every course to roughly the top 20 percent of students.
The slow, devastating creep of grade inflation has lately swept its way across every tier of American education, including echelons of Ivy-league higher
... Show Full Article
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, May 27 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on May 26, 2026, by policy fellow Josiah Padley:
* * *
Harvard is right to cap A grades
In a decision a long time in the making, nearly 70 percent of Harvard's faculty has just voted to limit A grades in every course to roughly the top 20 percent of students.
The slow, devastating creep of grade inflation has lately swept its way across every tier of American education, including echelons of Ivy-league highereducation like Harvard. Grade inflation at the K-12 level, enabled in some part by test-optional, no-zeroes policies established during the pandemic, leads to a dearth of real student learning as grades lose their meaning. That impacts both the student (who now knows less than they should) and the school (whose graduates will not succeed as they should). At this systemic scale, grade inflation resets social expectations about acceptable GPAs for collegiate acceptance, competitive job applications, or further graduate study. When the majority of students receive an A, a B conveys a disastrous understanding of academic material.
Harvard has been no exception to the structural pressure to hand out As. Last spring, a full two thirds of grades were A grades. Within the last 15 years, the median cumulative GPA at graduation had risen to 3.83 from 3.56. An undergraduate prize awarded to the graduating student with the highest GPA had a 55-way tie last year -- split between a group of students who had only received A grades.
(Many secondary schools at all levels of academic rigor similarly struggle with grade inflation. Recently, about two thirds of all grades given at the U's Twin Cities campus were A grades.)
A Harvard Office of Undergraduate Education report released last October ignited controversy over the report's steely-eyed tone in diagnosing the grade inflation problem. In the report, Dean of Undergraduate Education Amanda Claybaugh argued that the rising share of A grades necessitated reforms to "restore the integrity of our grading and return the academic culture of the College to what it was in the recent past." She also warned that Harvard's current grading system is "damaging the academic culture of the College."
Undergraduates overwhelmingly despised the proposal to cap A grades, with almost 85 percent opposing the move. Student writers complained that Harvard's culture valued extracurriculars and networking opportunities highly, leaving little time for classes. They also noted (correctly) that other top universities in the nation also suffer from grade inflation, meaning that Harvard students with lower GPAs (but the same amount of actual course understanding) would be at a disadvantage for further opportunities.
It's a fair concern. But what the undergraduates are missing (and will hopefully come to see) is that Harvard is uniquely well positioned to lead the nation's academic institutions towards real, rigorous academic achievement. The temporary discomfort of undergraduates at one university today is a regrettable side effect of a meaningful course correction, if the reset can signal a new, strong course for many other schools.
For better or for worse, Harvard is widely perceived as the pinnacle of American higher education. The signals that it distributes matter. Should an Ivy League education consist of four years of lush networking, or a rigorous academic formation? Harvard's faculty just voted to re-center actual learning, and their choice will be echoed in other universities' discussions.
Undergraduate frustration is understandable, but not a legitimate reason to dismiss a much-needed reform impulse. Plus, the resume-seeking Harvard students themselves aren't actually served by a glut of A grades. When high GPAs are ubiquitous, students must turn to extracurriculars to distinguish themselves, exhausting themselves in the process as they lose focus on their desired course of study. The short term squeeze of cutting a few extracurriculars to study more will lead to more actual learning. Healthy progress takes time, and Harvard leadership like Dean Claybaugh have wisely taken the long view. She has previously written,
"We owe our students a functioning grading system. Specifically, we owe them grades that send clear signals, that give them a good sense of their strengths and weaknesses and that communicate their areas of distinction to employers and admissions committees...We owe our students much more than that. We owe them an education that is meaningful as well as rigorous."
All other Harvard grades (including an A minus) remain uncapped. Most Harvard students will still be able to enjoy their extracurricular pursuits while still graduating with a strong GPA.
To be clear, the new cap is an imperfect solution to a runaway problem. Harvard students are not known to be Philistine slackers, after all. What if a course contains many students who deserve an A?
One part of the new policy aims to give some wiggle room, especially to small, collaborative upper level seminars. The actual rule is a "twenty percent plus four" approach, meaning that an additional four students can receive an A grade in addition to twenty percent of students in the class. In a NYT op-ed, Jason Furman and David Laibson write:
"Every proposal that was floated, including this one, has downsides and unfair cases. The 20-plus-four approach, for example, would penalize a class that had unusually many talented and hard-working students. But it provides an easy-to-understand, workable solution to the grade inflation that plagued the old status quo. So we chose it."
Other elite institutions have also created artificial approaches to motivate students towards academic success. It is standard practice, for instance, for all law schools to grade their students on a curve. If students want to be recognized as the best in the class through an A grade, that designation should mean something.
Now, Harvard's experiment in grade reform takes flight -- and may face significant challenges. As Harvard professor emeritus Harvey Mansfield has long pointed out, the decades of grading inflation at Harvard has been fostered by a collective action problem among the faculty. Their recent vote signifies that they're ready for a change. But the social pressures for high grades and worried undergraduates will remain, meaning that Harvard faculty will have to stay the course and refuse to back down on the new policy.
There are challenges, but the news should bring optimism. Strong leadership at Harvard can signal systems-wide change, refocusing the classroom on academics and devaluing a perfect, stress-inducing GPA. Let's hope that will be the case.
* * *
Josiah Padley is a Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment.
josiah.padley@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/harvard-is-right-to-cap-a-grades/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center for American Progress: Historic Massachusetts Rideshare Union Certification Signals New Era for Gig Workers
WASHINGTON, May 27 -- The Center for American Progress issued the following statement on May 26, 2026:
* * *
Historic Massachusetts Rideshare Union Certification Signals New Era for Gig Workers
David Madland, senior adviser to the American Worker Project at the Center for American Progress, issued the following statement after the Massachusetts Department of Labor Relations certified the App Drivers Union as the bargaining representative for rideshare drivers in the state:
This is one of the biggest labor organizing victories in decades and a major turning point for the gig economy. Approximately
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 27 -- The Center for American Progress issued the following statement on May 26, 2026:
* * *
Historic Massachusetts Rideshare Union Certification Signals New Era for Gig Workers
David Madland, senior adviser to the American Worker Project at the Center for American Progress, issued the following statement after the Massachusetts Department of Labor Relations certified the App Drivers Union as the bargaining representative for rideshare drivers in the state:
This is one of the biggest labor organizing victories in decades and a major turning point for the gig economy. Approximately70,000 rideshare drivers in Massachusetts now have a path to collectively bargain for better pay, safer working conditions, and greater protections in an industry that has long resisted accountability.
The certification of the App Drivers Union shows that workers can still build collective power at scale, even in industries built around apps, algorithms, and independent contractors. Massachusetts' sectoral bargaining model could become a blueprint for improving job quality in sectors where traditional organizing has struggled to keep up.
Technology and artificial intelligence (AI) are rapidly reshaping work, but this effort shows that workers do not have to face those changes alone.
Related resource: "Fast Facts About Massachusetts Rideshare Sectoral Bargaining" by David Madland (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/fast-facts-about-massachusetts-rideshare-sectoral-bargaining/)
For more information or to speak with an expert, contact Christian Unkenholz at cunkenholz@americanprogress.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanprogress.org/press/statement-historic-massachusetts-rideshare-union-certification-signals-new-era-for-gig-workers/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center for American Progress: 70,000 Massachusetts Drivers Could Transform Worker Organizing in the Gig Economy
WASHINGTON, May 27 (TNSrep) -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release on May 26, 2026:
* * *
70,000 Massachusetts Drivers Could Transform Worker Organizing in the Gig Economy
Following the certification of the App Drivers Union as the bargaining representative for approximately 70,000 Massachusetts rideshare drivers, a new Center for American Progress analysis (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/fast-facts-about-massachusetts-rideshare-sectoral-bargaining/) examines how the state's groundbreaking sectoral bargaining law could reshape worker organizing in the
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 27 (TNSrep) -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release on May 26, 2026:
* * *
70,000 Massachusetts Drivers Could Transform Worker Organizing in the Gig Economy
Following the certification of the App Drivers Union as the bargaining representative for approximately 70,000 Massachusetts rideshare drivers, a new Center for American Progress analysis (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/fast-facts-about-massachusetts-rideshare-sectoral-bargaining/) examines how the state's groundbreaking sectoral bargaining law could reshape worker organizing in thegig economy and create one of the largest new private sector bargaining units in modern U.S. history.
Massachusetts' 2024 rideshare bargaining law lowers barriers to unionization and allows drivers to bargain collectively across an entire industry, rather than workplace by workplace. This model could become a template for improving wages and working conditions in industries where workers are dispersed, managed by algorithms, or classified as independent contractors.
"Massachusetts drivers are showing that workers in the modern economy can still build collective power," said David Madland, senior adviser to the American Worker Project at CAP and author of the analysis. "This groundbreaking sectoral bargaining model gives rideshare drivers a real path to negotiate for better pay, benefits, and protections in an industry that sorely needs improvements."
The analysis highlights several key findings:
* The bargaining unit could be historically significant. The approximately 70,000-driver App Drivers Union could become the largest new private sector bargaining unit since the 1941 unionization of Ford's River Rouge plant workers.
* Massachusetts created a new organizing model for gig workers. The law allows drivers to access coworker contact information with support from just 5 percent of workers and begin bargaining with support from 25 percent of drivers, significantly lower thresholds than those required under the National Labor Relations Act.
* Sectoral bargaining is especially effective in fragmented industries. Because rideshare work is dispersed and structured around independent contractors, sectoral bargaining allows all drivers in the industry to negotiate collectively regardless of employment classification or work arrangement.
* Drivers are seeking protections against unstable working conditions and AI-driven management. Drivers face low pay, occupational safety concerns, arbitrary deactivation, algorithmic management, and the growing threat of job displacement from autonomous vehicles.
* Massachusetts and California together could dramatically expand bargaining coverage. If rideshare drivers in both states successfully secure contracts, an estimated 900,000 workers could ultimately be covered by collective bargaining agreements.
* The model is already spreading. Similar rideshare bargaining legislation is advancing in Illinois and Minnesota and could expand to additional industries where improving working conditions has proven difficult.
Read the analysis: "Fast Facts About Massachusetts Rideshare Sectoral Bargaining" by David Madland (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/fast-facts-about-massachusetts-rideshare-sectoral-bargaining/)
For more information or to speak with an expert, contact Christian Unkenholz at cunkenholz@americanprogress.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release-70000-massachusetts-drivers-could-transform-worker-organizing-in-the-gig-economy/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: How Arab Gulf States View the Emerging Iran Deal
WASHINGTON, May 27 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on May 26, 2026, by Director and senior adviser Mona Yacoubian and senior fellow Will Todman, both with the Middle East Program.
Todman is also the chief of staff of the Geopolitics and Foreign Policy Department.
* * *
How Arab Gulf States View the Emerging Iran Deal
As details of an anticipated memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the United States and Iran emerge, Arab Gulf states are likely to meet the deal with a mix of relief and trepidation. If signed, the MOU and accompanying
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 27 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on May 26, 2026, by Director and senior adviser Mona Yacoubian and senior fellow Will Todman, both with the Middle East Program.
Todman is also the chief of staff of the Geopolitics and Foreign Policy Department.
* * *
How Arab Gulf States View the Emerging Iran Deal
As details of an anticipated memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the United States and Iran emerge, Arab Gulf states are likely to meet the deal with a mix of relief and trepidation. If signed, the MOU and accompanying60-day ceasefire will begin to sharpen the focus of the contours of an emerging order in the Middle East. In this next phase, Gulf actors will accelerate efforts to protect their equities and ensure that any deal with Iran is sustainable for them.
Relief: Averting Catastrophe
In a brief trip to Qatar last week, the authors found a region traumatized by nearly three months of conflict. No Qatari nationals have been killed in the war, but the traumatic impact of a country coming under sustained missile and drone attacks for weeks was notable. While not captured in media headlines, many stories of anxiety and at times panic while Doha came under attack were shared. Even measures adopted to protect civilians, such as a mobile phone app designed to warn residents of incoming fire, sparked fear. All told, government efforts to mitigate the worst impacts of the conflict have facilitated a broader national resilience, but higher prices and shortages of some goods still exist. Qatar's experience is shared with other Arab Gulf states, especially smaller countries such as Kuwait, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), where Iranian strikes have affected a broad swath of the population.
Beyond the human trauma, most Gulf states also face existential economic stakes with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and direct attacks on their energy infrastructure. Every Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) country has had some element of its energy infrastructure--whether storage, transport, refinery, or production--hit by Iranian strikes. Qatar has faced among the most dramatic impacts. Iranian strikes on Ras Laffan destroyed nearly 20 percent of its liquified natural gas (LNG) production. Ras Laffan is Qatar's main LNG production and export facility, the largest in the world, and responsible for one-fifth of global supply. For the first time in history, Qatar has had to freeze production, declaring force majeure on its contracts.
Had the Trump administration opted to undertake strikes against Iran's energy and civilian infrastructure, as the president often threatened, the next phase of conflict could have been catastrophic for the Gulf. Already, their energy production--the lifeblood of their economies--has been upended, not to mention their ambitious economic diversification plans, grounded in a vision of vibrant Gulf economies fortified not just by the region's vast energy wealth, but also by a growing role for tourism and technology, especially AI. With the resumption of conflict, prospects for foreign direct investment would dry up. As one interlocutor lamented, "no one in their right mind" would invest in the region should the conflict return.
Throughout the conflict, Iran has adopted an approach of responding to escalation with escalation, hitting the same types of targets as those that are struck by U.S. and Israeli strikes in Iran. Tehran has threatened to do the same if military conflict resumes. Facing existential stakes, the principal powers among the GCC--Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar--have lobbied President Trump to avoid another round of conflict with Iran and instead pursue diplomacy.
Trepidation: Living with Iran
Gulf countries undoubtedly are relieved that conflict with Iran has not resumed. Yet, that relief is tempered by a large dose of trepidation. The prospective deal leaves in place an emboldened, hardline regime in Tehran that is claiming victory. The region must now contend with an Iran that maintains the ability to disrupt the strait at any time by virtue of retaining its missile and drone capabilities. Uncertainty about the Strait of Hormuz is particularly worrying to Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait, given their full dependence on the strait for exports and imports. Arab Gulf states are also wary that Iran maintains ties to proxies and partners across the Middle East, however weakened some may be.
GCC states' main demand is to return the strait to the status quo ante, but that does not seem probable under the reported terms of the MOU. As one Qatari official said, "this could leave us hostage to the Iranians." Gulf states see no other option than to resume their pragmatic engagement with Iran. However, a huge trust deficit remains. GCC states will demand that the strait be fully open to their maritime traffic as a precondition to discussions about providing Iran with economic incentives to refrain from future attacks.
Outlook
As the Gulf continues to absorb the enormity of all that has changed since February 28 and the war with Iran, it will now deepen its efforts to manage the "new normal." GCC countries will not respond uniformly; each will develop its own strategy depending on its priorities, strengths and weaknesses, and outlook. But certain throughlines across the different Gulf states will be discernible. Faced with an Iran that can still pose a threat to the region and questions about the United States' reliability as a security guarantor, the Gulf likely will focus on steps that build domestic defense capabilities, strengthen intra-Gulf security cooperation, and diversify security and economic partners to supplement U.S. ties and manage Iran.
For many Gulf countries, strengthening domestic defenses via diversified partnerships will be key. Gulf states are likely to forge new defense agreements with European and East Asian states. Last week, the UAE signed a defense cooperation agreement with France, while Qatar signed an MOU with Canada on increasing cooperation in security and defense. One Gulf analyst anticipated that Gulf states' investment will shift away from AI technology toward the military-industrial complex. A Qatari interlocutor expressed an interest in learning from the experience of other small countries that had successfully defended themselves, including Singapore and Israel.
Despite widely broadcast differences between some GCC countries, particularly between Saudi Arabia and the UAE, strong levels of intra-GCC cooperation on intelligence-sharing, security, and military cooperation have continued if not deepened, according to some Gulf officials. This cooperation will undoubtedly deepen over the coming months and years and will likely entail more maritime security measures, including mine-clearing capabilities to facilitate navigational freedom, as well as strengthened anti-drone defenses, likely via investment in Ukrainian anti-drone technologies. Qatar is likely to play a lead role in working to balance intra-Gulf differences, seeking to bridge Oman on one end of the spectrum and the UAE on the other.
Gulf states will also attempt to shore up their defense ties with the United States. As well as seeking to upgrade the legal status of their partnerships, even aiming to secure a treaty-level pact with the United States, they will also try to make existing mutual defense mechanisms more robust.
Finally, as part of this "new normal," the Gulf will need to manage Iran. Whatever trust may have existed is utterly shattered and yet, as nearly every interlocutor in Qatar told the authors, "Iran is here to stay." For Qatar and others in the Gulf, forging ties of economic interdependence between Iran and the Gulf is likely the best form of deterrence. In this view, integrating Iran into an economic model that depends on regional stability may be the best hope for deterring its disruptive behavior going forward.
It's not the first time the principle of economic integration as a salve for conflict has been raised. U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull noted just after World War II, "If goods do not cross borders, armies will," a driving motivation behind the Marshall Plan. During the authors' trip, Qatari analysts highlighted the concept of a "golden bridge" for Iran--perhaps more apt given that the Islamic regime is still in power. Borrowed from the Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu, author of The Art of War, this precept argues for providing adversaries with a graceful exit from conflict anchored in a mutually beneficial resolution. Almost three months of war have revealed the ineffectiveness of classic military deterrence with Iran. Gulf states know that they must pursue a new strategy.
* * *
Mona Yacoubian is director and senior adviser of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Will Todman is the chief of staff of the Geopolitics and Foreign Policy Department and a senior fellow in the Middle East Program at CSIS.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-arab-gulf-states-view-emerging-iran-deal
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI Responds to Pope's Encyclical: AI, Faith, and Human Flourishing
WASHINGTON, May 27 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on May 26, 2026:
* * *
AFPI Responds to Pope's Encyclical: AI, Faith, and Human Flourishing
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) has released the following statement from Joel Thayer, senior fellow for AI and Emerging Technology in response to Pope Leo XIV's new papal encyclical on AI, emerging technology, and human dignity:
"The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) welcomes Pope Leo XIV's encyclical Magnifica Humanitas. This document arrives at a defining moment in which activity regarding what we
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 27 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on May 26, 2026:
* * *
AFPI Responds to Pope's Encyclical: AI, Faith, and Human Flourishing
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) has released the following statement from Joel Thayer, senior fellow for AI and Emerging Technology in response to Pope Leo XIV's new papal encyclical on AI, emerging technology, and human dignity:
"The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) welcomes Pope Leo XIV's encyclical Magnifica Humanitas. This document arrives at a defining moment in which activity regarding what we'can' do with technology should be moderated by what we 'should' do. New technology is only productive if it is in service of the human person. The Holy See's commitment to ensuring artificial intelligence (AI) serves individuals and upholds moral values are shared by the America First movement."
"The Trump Administration has led the way in both the development and oversight of this technology. Ensuring our fundamental rights, national security, and economic prosperity remain protected and morally balanced with technology are policy principles that the America First movement prizes. AFPI's AI Agenda proposes policies on AI technologies that serve American workers, but not replace them, as well as to advance health research and deliver breakthroughs that raise living standards for all people."
"AFPI's AI and Emerging Technology team has offered solutions that put people first. We appreciate the continued reflections from the Holy See and welcome ongoing dialogue on how technology can serve the common good while ethically innovating so that America, a beacon of freedom and hope in a conflicted world, remains the global leader in AI."
The AI and Emerging Technology team has written extensively on the importance of upholding human dignity, AI dominance, protecting the American worker, and promoting technological progress. Read more about their work here (https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/policy-areas/ai-and-emerging-technology).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-responds-to-popes-encyclical-ai-faith-and-human-flourishing
[Category: ThinkTank]
