Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: What Does the Supreme Court Ruling on LGBTQ+ Curriculum Mean for Minnesota?
GOLDEN VALLEY, Minnesota, July 4 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on July 3, 2025:* * *
What does the Supreme Court ruling on LGBTQ+ curriculum mean for Minnesota?
By Catrin Wigfall
The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor last week found that a Maryland public school district violated the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause by refusing to let parents opt their elementary children out of reading lessons that included LGBTQ+ books.
Relying heavily on a decision ... Show Full Article GOLDEN VALLEY, Minnesota, July 4 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on July 3, 2025: * * * What does the Supreme Court ruling on LGBTQ+ curriculum mean for Minnesota? By Catrin Wigfall The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor last week found that a Maryland public school district violated the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause by refusing to let parents opt their elementary children out of reading lessons that included LGBTQ+ books. Relying heavily on a decisionmade a century ago in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the High Court reasserted that parents cannot be forced to have their children exposed to material that violates their religious beliefs. The public school district's "LGBTQ+-inclusive" curriculum and "no-opt-out policy pursue the kind of ideological conformity that Pierce" prohibits, wrote Justice Clarence Thomas.
Parents with different religious objections, including Muslims and Orthodox Christians, brought the suit after the Maryland school district initially allowed parents to opt-out of the LGBTQ+ books and instruction but then withdrew that option, citing administrability concerns. But Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh questioned why the opt-outs were not possible given their commonality in other schools and even in this particular district in other contexts (parents could opt-out their children from similar content in health and sex education in the county schools). Additionally, opt-outs for religious reasons make up a small portion of opt-outs, making them less of a burden.
What does this mean for Minnesota?
In Minnesota, state law already requires districts to have a procedure in place for a parent to review the content of the instructional materials provided to their child and, if the parent objects to the content, make "reasonable arrangements" with school personnel for alternative instruction. This not only applies to health and sex education but other classes as well.
Further, if the alternative instruction offered by the school board does not meet the concerns of the parent, that parent may provide alternative instruction. No repercussions or academic penalties can be imposed on the student for arranging alternative instruction.
Parents may not be aware of this decades-old law or their district's procedure for making "reasonable arrangements" for an alternative lesson. Those interested in learning more about their district's policy on the matter can look in the 600 range -- for example, the St. Louis Park school district's 606 policy includes "Procedures for Objection to Instructional/Resource Materials," such as parental alternative curriculum request forms and forms for citizens or community members to request reconsideration of curriculum.
In addition, Minnesota Statute 120B.11 requires school districts to provide for regular community review of the curriculum review process. While this requirement is more broad, it still provides parental involvement in a district's review and evaluation cycle for each subject area. Interested parents and community members can ask their school board about serving on the district advisory committee.
Parental rights, responsibilities, and values do not get surrendered at the schoolhouse door. Understanding these rights and knowing how to exercise them is an important part of playing an active role in your child's education. Check out American Experiment's Minnesota Parent Toolkit to learn more.
* * *
Catrin Wigfall is a Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/what-does-the-supreme-court-ruling-on-lgbtq-curriculum-mean-for-minnesota/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center: NEA's 'Safe Zones' Are About Protecting Illegals, Not Education
WASHINGTON, July 4 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on July 3, 2025:* * *
The NEA's "Safe Zones" Are About Protecting Illegals, Not Education
By Kali Fontanilla
While American students are falling behind in reading, writing, and basic life skills, the National Education Association (NEA), the largest teachers union in the country, is working overtime to shield illegal immigrants from deportation--not by educating parents, teachers, and students about legal pathways to becoming citizens, but by encouraging school districts to obstruct federal law and become immigration ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 4 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on July 3, 2025: * * * The NEA's "Safe Zones" Are About Protecting Illegals, Not Education By Kali Fontanilla While American students are falling behind in reading, writing, and basic life skills, the National Education Association (NEA), the largest teachers union in the country, is working overtime to shield illegal immigrants from deportation--not by educating parents, teachers, and students about legal pathways to becoming citizens, but by encouraging school districts to obstruct federal law and become immigrationenforcement "Safe Zones." According to the NEA's official website, the union proudly supports Safe Zone School Districts, where teachers and staff are trained to resist cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and shield students and families facing deportation. The goal? To keep immigration authorities off school campuses and create a system where enforcement of federal law is subverted under the guise of "protection."
Let that sink in. The same union that fought to keep schools closed for years during COVID is now pushing for policies that shield non-citizens from the law, while American citizens are stuck dealing with the fallout of a broken education system. Talk about misguided priorities. American children are robbed of crucial learning time in the classroom, but the union is fighting for illegal aliens, tooth and nail.
In any other context, this would rightly be described as a crime, namely, obstruction of justice. But when it is wrapped in buzzwords like "safe zone" or "community support," the NEA expects zero pushback.
Now imagine if a group of Americans tried to create "safe zones" to shield people from tax law enforcement (not the worst idea?) or child welfare investigations. How would that be received?
Here is another double standard: January 6 defendants were charged with "obstructing a federal proceeding" and handed multiyear prison sentences, and many were kept in solitary confinement for long periods of time. But when schools and unions do the same to block immigration enforcement? The media shrugs. No DOJ press conferences. No televised hearings. No accusations of "threats to democracy" or our nation's safety. When you think about it in this context, it's frankly infuriating.
Fearmongering vs Reality
But all that aside, no real evidence shows that ICE is raiding schools. What has changed is that under Trump, a 2011 policy that discouraged enforcement actions in "sensitive locations" such as schools and churches was reversed, meaning ICE is no longer formally restricted from those areas. This policy shift has triggered a wave of fearmongering, despite the fact that ICE is still not carrying out raids on school campuses. However, some undocumented immigrants have taken shelter in churches for weeks at a time to avoid deportation, which was widely reported during both the Trump and Biden years. The NEA is using this change to justify its Safe Zone policies built around a hypothetical threat that has not actually materialized in schools.
Take a recent example from April 2025 in Los Angeles. Reports exploded on social media claiming ICE agents had been spotted on a school campus. Students panicked, teachers staged a walkout, and local press aggressively repeated the claim. But when the district investigated, the "raid" turned out to be a routine visit by Homeland Security Investigations to conduct a welfare check on two unaccompanied migrant children, not an enforcement action.
Or look at what just happened in Chicago's Waukegan School District. District officials sent out a mass warning that ICE agents had entered a local school again, causing widespread fear and outrage. But just hours later, the district admitted it was wrong. ICE was never on campus. In fact, they were not even involved. In this case, the agents were part of another federal agency unrelated to immigration enforcement and were investigating a threat over a TikTok ban.
Let's be clear: two major school panic incidents within weeks of each other, zero actual ICE raids. It seems that the only people causing a distraction to learning are those who, like the NEA, think that any "federal-looking" official visiting a school campus must be an ICE agent, out to snatch children from classrooms.
A close friend of mine, who is an elementary school teacher in California, recently told me about one of her students who has not been to school in weeks. He is just seven years old, undocumented, and terrified that if he shows up to school, he will be deported. Now he is missing the last month of school, falling even further behind in a system where he was already struggling. My friend sees how much this fear is costing him, academically and emotionally. Who is to blame for this? ICE and the Trump administration? Or the fear-mongering left-wing activists who have taken over our education system?
This is what happens when the media and activist groups selectively amplify fear. Under President Obama, deportations hit record highs, even as schools aired his speeches in cafeterias for immigrant children to watch. There were no viral sob stories. No protests. No crying influencers. And under President Biden, deportations quietly continued, including of unaccompanied minors, with barely a word from the press.
In fact, according to a 2023 study by the UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy, the Biden administration deported tens of thousands of unaccompanied children without giving them a court hearing. That's right, they denied these children that "due process" we are now told is the most sacred thing in America, thus contradicting the entire narrative that he conducted more "compassionate deportations" (whatever that means).
Yet back then, there were no viral TikToks. No school walkouts. No NEA Safe Zone campaigns targeting Biden. The same people who cried under Trump stayed quiet. Their compassion for illegal immigrant students is conditional. It's a political farce, pulled out when it's convenient for their goals.
Politics over Education
So while our nation's educational system continues to fail our children, the most powerful forces in schools are pushing their political agendas. The NEA is not just a union, but a political lobbying machine. According to its own LM-2 financial filings, the union spent over $67 million on political activity during the 2020 election cycle, nearly all of it for left-wing candidates and causes.
Instead of fighting to raise reading scores or restore academic discipline, the union has taken up pet causes: promoting gender transitions in schools without parental notification, pushing training inspired by critical race theory, and now enabling safe harbor policies for people violating immigration law while sowing unjustified fear among students and staff.
Our public schools are plagued with problems and failing to meet their most basic goals. Parents are pulling their kids out of them in record numbers. Homeschooling is surging. School violence is rising. And the NEA? They are busy training educators how to resist ICE.
* * *
Kali Fontanilla
Kali is serving as CRC's Senior fellow, particularly focusing on topics related to K-12 public education.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/the-neas-safe-zones-are-about-protecting-illegals-not-education/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Rand Issues Commentary: Countering Russian Influence - Support for Armenia, Georgia, and Moldova in the 'Waiting Room of the West'
SANTA MONICA, California, July 3 -- Rand issued the following commentary on July 1, 2025:* * *
Countering Russian Influence: Support for Armenia, Georgia, and Moldova in the 'Waiting Room of the West'
By John Kennedy and William Dunbar
As Europe rallies to support Ukraine's defence and fortify its own security, three other post-Soviet states--Armenia, Georgia, and Moldova--remain dangerously exposed to Russian coercion. Each has expressed a desire to move closer to the West: Moldova and Georgia are official EU candidates, and all three participate in the European Union's Eastern Partnership. ... Show Full Article SANTA MONICA, California, July 3 -- Rand issued the following commentary on July 1, 2025: * * * Countering Russian Influence: Support for Armenia, Georgia, and Moldova in the 'Waiting Room of the West' By John Kennedy and William Dunbar As Europe rallies to support Ukraine's defence and fortify its own security, three other post-Soviet states--Armenia, Georgia, and Moldova--remain dangerously exposed to Russian coercion. Each has expressed a desire to move closer to the West: Moldova and Georgia are official EU candidates, and all three participate in the European Union's Eastern Partnership.Yet despite these aspirations, their chances of joining the European Union in the short term are slim. In this "waiting room" posture, their situation is precarious: it is precisely their orientation towards Europe and NATO that increases their vulnerability to Russian pressure, subversion, and, in some cases, military aggression.
While a full-scale invasion like that in Ukraine may not be imminent, Russian efforts to destabilise these states are already underway. In Georgia, once a regional reform leader, a pro-Russian slide has accelerated under an increasingly authoritarian government, despite overwhelming public support for EU membership. In Moldova, fragile democratic institutions and the unresolved Transnistria conflict leave the country exposed to disinformation and electoral interference. In Armenia, the aftermath of the 2023 Nagorno-Karabakh crisis has created fertile ground for pro-Russian political actors, who seek to capitalise on insecurity and thwart the country's Western shift.
This interference raises a significant challenge for European decisionmakers. If they are serious about preventing further Russian strategic gains across the region, new measures must be found to help these countries overcome pro-Russian disinformation campaigns and resist populist political forces that would drag them back into Moscow's orbit. Short of formal accession to the European Union, there are several material ways to support those in the waiting room.
Russia has threatened Moldova more directly than any other country but Ukraine since 2022. In 2023, President Maia Sandu said she had received information from the Ukrainian security services detailing a plot to topple the country's leadership, prevent it from joining the European Union, and to use the country in the war against Ukraine. In the period prior to last year's presidential election, Russia ramped up its information manipulation and interference campaign. A recent report (PDF) by Moldova's Security and Intelligence Service states that Russia seeks to destabilize the country and undermine democracy and European integration. Furthermore, as Moldovan Deputy Prime Minister Mihail Popsoi recently stated, parliamentary elections this year will be fraught with risk because, in addition to bribing voters, public debate is distorted through disinformation propagated by fake online media accounts linked to Russia. Indeed, the opposition is actively twisting the truth by questioning the integrity of the recent Romanian presidential election in the Russian press and claiming that the West will seek to do the same in Moldova's forthcoming parliamentary elections in September.
Russia also seeks to exacerbate tensions in separatist Transnistria, which relies economically on Russia and is a haven for organised crime. Moscow recently attempted to precipitate an energy crisis in the enclave and blame it on the Moldovan government in Chisinau.
In Georgia, the vulnerability of the waiting room has been ruthlessly exploited by domestic anti-Western, anti-liberal forces, always to the Kremlin's benefit. The country has been subjected to all-out oligarchic state capture and is now run by a Russian-style authoritarian government that has abandoned EU integration. This is despite the fact the government party campaigned in a 2024 election on a platform of "to Europe with Dignity," and around three quarters of Georgians want to join the bloc. In Tbilisi pro-Western political parties are not only out of government, but could yet be banned outright by an ever more repressive regime. Independent civil society, which has flourished for thirty years, is being crushed by repressive legislation.
In Armenia, longstanding security ties to Moscow have been upended by the events of the 2020 war against Azerbaijan in Nagorno Karabakh. The war ended with the deployment of Russian peacekeepers to Karabakh, ostensibly to protect the ethnic-Armenian population, but they did nothing to prevent Azerbaijan conquering the whole of the disputed territory in 2023, which resulted in the forced displacement of more than 100,000 civilians--a displacement that has been described as ethnic cleansing by the Council on Foreign Relations, Freedom House, and the European Parliament.
As a result of these events, Russia's reputation in Armenia is in tatters, with more people now seeing the country as a threat (https://www.iri.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/ARM-24-NS-01-Slide-Deck_English10.18.2024.pdf) than as a partner, a seismic shift from five years ago. The government also sees Russia as an unreliable partner and, although the country still remains a member of the Eurasian Economic Union on paper, the Armenian parliament voted to begin EU accession talks earlier this year. Indeed, some 60 percent of Armenians (https://www.iri.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/ARM-24-NS-01-Slide-Deck_English10.18.2024.pdf) would vote to join the European Union tomorrow. This was accompanied in 2024 by new EU grants to support economic resilience. The European Union also maintains an unarmed monitoring mission on Armenia's border with Azerbaijan. This mission, to the ire of Baku, regularly reports on Azerbaijani firing at Armenian civilian infrastructure.
Nevertheless, Armenia's Western trajectory is extremely perilous. Yerevan remains in Russia's orbit even as political relations have declined. Since its borders with both Turkey and Azerbaijan are firmly closed, its trade links with Russia remain extremely important. And although Armenia has removed Russian border guards from Yerevan's airport, they remain on its border with Iran, in addition to a major Russian base in Gyumri. With Armenia facing the existential threat of a further invasion by Azerbaijan, a threat that is relentlessly talked up by the Kremlin, the great risk is that Moscow will acquiesce to an Azerbaijani assault as a means to install a pro-Russian figure in Yerevan.
Despite these concerning trajectories, there remain several measures European allies could take to counter Russian influence and expansion in the region. One is the revitalisation of strategic communications campaigns which promote liberal democracy and the rule of law. Much is written about Russia's disinformation playbook, which is built upon false appeals (PDF) to patriotism, conspiracy theories about questions of identity, and veiled threats of aggression, but the information war is eminently winnable. In the past, Europe has relied heavily on U.S.-funded organisations, including USAID, National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), to support civil society and the independent media, and each country is more open to the conspiracy theories and disinformation peddled by Russia without them. With USAID programs suspended across the region, and the future of NED and RFE/RL in doubt, European counterparts will have to think proactively about how to fill the gap in crucial areas like media development and strategic communications.
Countries in the waiting room of the West also need further political and economic support--support that recognises the vulnerability they face in seeking Western integration and helps to reduce remaining dependencies and associations with Russia. In Armenia, the European Union could bolster the country's western pivot by offering candidacy status, continuing its border monitoring mission, and taking a firmer line on Azerbaijan's military provocations and bellicose rhetoric. European countries including the United Kingdom could increase their support for the government's strategic communications efforts to counter disinformation and to embed the country's reorientation.
In Moldova, the European Union has increased its support since 2022, including through the Moldova Support Platform. This has funded efforts to improve Moldova's energy security and reduce the cost of electricity. The United Kingdom also offers Moldova support on a range of issues through its annual Strategic Dialogue (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/681b644de26cd2f713d87024/UK-Moldova_Joint_Statement.pdf), including efforts to counter hybrid threats. However, the scale of Western support--including financial resources and commitments--should be elevated commensurate with the significance of the threat from Russia (https://carnegie-production-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/static/files/Russia%20Strategy%20in%20Moldova.pdf); the stalemate in Ukraine may provoke the Kremlin to look for opportunistic gains elsewhere. Russia has little to offer Moldovans and the West should focus on quickening and deepening the material aspects of integration and partnership, increasing its relative appeal still further.
Firmer levers including sanctions could be applied to counter democratic backsliding in Georgia, and the country's candidate status could be formally suspended if the government continues to take the country towards a Russian model. With EU-wide sanctions complicated due to de facto vetoes from Hungary and Slovakia, efforts to hold to account those responsible for corruption and human rights abuses will have to fall to individual states. Countries such as the United Kingdom can play a significant role here: Georgia has crucial business ties in banking, hydrocarbons, and the media, and a more robust stance regarding sanctions could significantly increase the costs for those seeking to turn Georgia away from its Western course.
History has also shown that any compromise, appeasement, or apathy in the response to Vladimir Putin's strategic ambitions on the continent only encourages further aggression. Using its presidency of the Council of the European Union, Poland has committed to convincing members that "Europe can continue to be the safest, most stable place on Earth." It follows that the bloc and its partners have a chance, once again, to meet the aspirations of those former Soviet countries which also seek that future.
* * *
More About This Commentary
John Kennedy is a research leader for Defence, Security, and Justice at RAND Europe. William Dunbar is a RAND Europe associate.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2025/07/countering-russian-influence-support-for-armenia-georgia.html
[Category: ThinkTank]
Pakistan's Bid to Raise More Revenue: a Closer Look at Wealth Taxes and DPI
BRIGHTON, England, July 3 (TNSrep) -- The Institute of Development Studies, an organization that conducts research, learning and teaching that aims to transform the knowledge, action and leadership needed for equitable and sustainable development globally, issued the following news:* * *
Pakistan's bid to raise more revenue: a closer look at wealth taxes and DPI
Earlier this month, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif's government presented the Federal Budget for the 2025-2026 fiscal year which allocated nearly 50% of the budget to debt servicing alone while severing subsidies - with a 13% cut on ... Show Full Article BRIGHTON, England, July 3 (TNSrep) -- The Institute of Development Studies, an organization that conducts research, learning and teaching that aims to transform the knowledge, action and leadership needed for equitable and sustainable development globally, issued the following news: * * * Pakistan's bid to raise more revenue: a closer look at wealth taxes and DPI Earlier this month, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif's government presented the Federal Budget for the 2025-2026 fiscal year which allocated nearly 50% of the budget to debt servicing alone while severing subsidies - with a 13% cut onpower sector subsidies - and announcing plans to broaden the revenue base and introduce new taxes to raise public revenue.
With a projected deficit of 3.9% of GDP and multiple economic challenges, one equitable way to raise revenue in Pakistan is through wealth taxes. But the country's previous attempts at wealth taxation faced elite resistance and were eventually abolished.
In the face of such challenges, a new study (https://www.ids.ac.uk/publications/public-support-for-wealth-and-progressive-taxes-in-pakistan/), led by IDS Research Fellow Dr. Max Gallien, ICTD Research Fellow Dr. Vanessa van den Boogaard and Dr. Umair Javed from the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) investigates the determinants of public support for wealth taxes which may help overcome this resistance. The study finds that support for these taxes is influenced by satisfaction and trust in the government, perceived fairness, and transparency in how funds will be spent.
Dr Javed remarked, "These results are significant as this is the first study of its kind providing this level of detail on public perceptions of wealth taxes in Pakistan. Our research presents strategies for policymakers responding to multiple fiscal pressures, including IMF-mandated reforms, that offer a more politically viable and socially acceptable path forward."
Download the policy briefing (https://www.ids.ac.uk/publications/public-support-for-wealth-and-progressive-taxes-in-pakistan/)
Digital Public Infrastructure in Pakistan
In parallel, another way to expand the tax base and increase compliance is by leveraging the potential of digital public infrastructure (DPI).
"DPI is a digital transformational approach based on interoperable, open source and accessible components - mainly digital IDs, digital payments and data exchange systems," explains ICTD Research Fellow Dr. Fabrizio Santoro.
By enabling efficient service delivery, seamless data sharing and effective digital governance, DPI has the potential to improve transparency, streamline bureaucracy and limit tax evasion.
"Recent research shows that DPI applications can enhance key functions of tax administration. The experiences of Uganda and Ghana, where national ID systems have been integrated with tax registration, demonstrate that leveraging ID data can increase formalisation and improve the quality of taxpayer information", write Ahsan Farooqui (ICTD), Farooq Chatha (IDS), and Fida Muhammad and Waqas Ahmed Bajwa (Federal Board of Revenue, Government of Pakistan) in a blog for Global Dev.
They note that Pakistan has made significant advances in integrating DPI into tax administration through initiatives led by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) but that challenges related to outdated infrastructure and capacity constrain hinder progress.
To address these issues and stakeholder resistance, "priority should be given to capacity building, fostering partnerships across sectors, and engaging taxpayers to increase awareness of digital tools, encourage participation, and build trust", the authors say.
* * *
Related resources:
* Check ICTD's recent work on taxing high-net worth individuals: Tax, Welfare and Inequality
* Study: Zakat Payments in Pakistan Exceed State Social Protection by Max Gallien, Umair Javed and Vanessa van den Boogaard
* Blog: Pakistanis are paying over 1.7 billion GBP in zakat every year--mostly to women by Max Gallien, Umair Javed and Vanessa van den Boogaard
* Seminar: Digital Public Infrastructure and Taxation in Africa - what have we learnt and what's next?
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ids.ac.uk/news/pakistans-revenue-wealth-taxes-and-dpi/
[Category: ThinkTank]
House Republicans Vote to Devastate Household Budgets, Says Groundwork's Owens
WASHINGTON, July 3 [Category: ThinkTank] -- Groundwork Collaborative, a think tank and progressive advocacy group, posted the following news release:* * *
House Republicans Vote to Devastate Household Budgets, Says Groundwork's Owens
*
Today, Congressional Republicans passed President Trump's budget bill, which makes life more expensive for working families by kicking millions of Americans off their health care coverage, taking food assistance away from children and seniors, and raising grocery and electric bills for working families -- all to give billionaires and large corporations a massive ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 3 [Category: ThinkTank] -- Groundwork Collaborative, a think tank and progressive advocacy group, posted the following news release: * * * House Republicans Vote to Devastate Household Budgets, Says Groundwork's Owens * Today, Congressional Republicans passed President Trump's budget bill, which makes life more expensive for working families by kicking millions of Americans off their health care coverage, taking food assistance away from children and seniors, and raising grocery and electric bills for working families -- all to give billionaires and large corporations a massivetax handout.
Groundwork Collaborative's Executive Director Lindsay Owens reacted with the following statement:
"At a time when Americans are asking their elected officials to make lowering costs a top priority, Republicans jammed a bill through Congress that will devastate household budgets. President Trump is waging a cruel assault on people who are already struggling to make ends meet by forcing through the largest Medicaid and nutrition assistance cuts in history. This legislation increases the cost of health care, groceries, and utility bills for working families while rewarding Republicans' wealthy donors with massive tax giveaways.
"President Trump's marquee legislation makes life less affordable for working families and gives the ultra wealthy yet another leg up. Once again, Republicans' priorities are out of step with the promises they've made and the people they're supposed to serve."
BACKGROUND
An analysis by Groundwork Collaborative found that the budget bill will increase costs for working families in nine ways:
* Increasing Health Care Expenses: The bill includes the largest Medicaid cut in U.S. history, doubling down on the devastating impacts of the House-passed bill, which threatens to close 338 rural hospitals and 579 nursing homes. Coupled with drastic changes to the Affordable Care Act, the legislation would kick 17 million people off their health insurance. Those able to stay on Marketplace coverage would see annual premiums nearly double to $1,300. For families in rural areas, premium increases could top $3,000.
* Increasing Grocery Bills: As American families struggle to afford groceries and food insecurity reaches its highest level in more than 10 years, Republicans want to reduce or eliminate Supplemental Assistance Nutrition Program (SNAP) benefits for nearly 5 million families. A significant portion of families would see their benefits reduced by an average of $100 per month, including more than half a million children, while over 2 million people would lose the benefit completely. A single mom with one child would see her food assistance payment drop to less than $5 per person per day - far too little to feed a family as grocery prices continue to rise.
* As food assistance is cut, more people will turn to food banks, which are already stretched thin and will not be able to keep up with the growing demand. This bill proposes a 20% cut to SNAP, and food bank managers have warned that even a 10% cut would be financially equivalent to wiping out every food bank in the U.S.
* At the same time, over 27,000 grocery stores that rely on SNAP spending are at risk. This will lead to store closures, job losses, higher prices, and reduced access to food in many communities, particularly in rural areas.
* Raising Utility Bills : Republicans included a near-full repeal of the clean energy tax credits, which incentivize utility companies to make new investments and diversify their grids. This could raise the average family's annual electricity costs by an average of more than $160 annually by 2030 and $400 by 2035, amounting to a more than $50 billion increase in yearly US energy expenditures by 2035. The grid is increasingly at risk of failing to meet soaring demand, which is set to double in the next 5 years as AI and data centers proliferate. The result will be sky high electricity bills and less resilient energy supply for consumers.
* Increasing Student Loan Payments: The bill eliminates multiple income-based student loan programs that help borrowers to repay their student loans, such as SAVE and PAYE. New borrowers would only be eligible for the Repayment Assistance Program (RAP), significantly increasing monthly payments. For example, a family with one child would pay $417 a month on the RAP plan, compared to less than $100 they would have paid under the SAVE plan. Additionally, the bill significantly limits how much parents of students can borrow from the federal government, forcing millions to pay higher interest rates from private lenders to fill the gap.
* Increasing the Price of Home Energy Efficiency Improvements: As utility bills rise, making your home more energy efficient would typically help - but Republicans want to make that more expensive, too. The bill terminates the residential clean energy credit, which saved families an average of $2,230 on solar panels in 2023. It also ends the energy efficient home improvement credit, which provided up to $3,200 in tax credits for taxpayers who made energy efficiency improvements to their homes, like installing electric heat pumps and Energy Star-certified windows. Currently, leveraging these two credits can save consumers more than $2,200 in energy costs each year.
* Increasing the Price of a New Home: The bill abolishes the New Energy Efficient Home Credit, which incentivized the construction of energy efficient homes and was estimated to spur the construction of 3 million homes in the next few years. Now, builders that were expecting the credit will likely pass the cost on to consumers or cancel the construction of new homes altogether, further disrupting the housing supply and increasing costs.
* Raising Gas Prices and Commuting Costs: By 2035, the price of gasoline would rise by up to 37 cents per gallon as a result of the proposed termination of electric vehicle (EV) affordability programs and a provision that strips existing fuel economy standards of any teeth. Paired with the termination of the $20 monthly pre-tax benefit for those who commute with a bicycle, which will increase demand for liquid fuel and drive up gas prices further, there's no good way to escape from increased commuting costs.
* Increasing the Price of a New Car: Republicans' bill terminates the $7,500 tax credit for purchase of new EVs ($4,000 for buying a used EV). On top of increased vehicle costs, Americans could also miss out on up to $2,200 in annual savings on fuel expenses.
* Raising Costs for Parents: Republicans' bill takes the Child Tax Credit away from the parents of children if neither parent is a citizen or legal permanent resident. This would deprive parents of the $2,200 credit meant to help offset the costs of raising children.
***
Original text here: https://groundworkcollaborative.org/news/house-republicans-vote-to-devastate-household-budgets-says-groundworks-owens/
CSIS Issues Commentary: Trade Liberalizing Efforts in Other Countries Contradict U.S. Policies
WASHINGTON, July 3 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on July 2, 2025:* * *
Trade Liberalizing Efforts in Other Countries Contradict U.S. Policies
By William Alan Reinsch and Safae Irghis
An issue currently being debated among economists and trade experts is whether the post-Bretton Woods rules-based international trading system has run its useful life and needs to be replaced with something else. This has been a theme in both the Biden and Trump administrations, though their narratives are different. Biden argued that the system was not serving ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 3 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on July 2, 2025: * * * Trade Liberalizing Efforts in Other Countries Contradict U.S. Policies By William Alan Reinsch and Safae Irghis An issue currently being debated among economists and trade experts is whether the post-Bretton Woods rules-based international trading system has run its useful life and needs to be replaced with something else. This has been a theme in both the Biden and Trump administrations, though their narratives are different. Biden argued that the system was not servingthe interests of workers and the middle class while permitting most of the benefits of liberalized trade to accrue to large companies and their executives. The Trump administration has argued that the United States is a victim of other countries' unfair practices, undermining the U.S. economy, destroying jobs, and compromising our security. They are similar in that both blame the system for having allowed, if not caused, damage to the U.S. economy and its manufacturing base.
The Trump administration has been more aggressive in taking actions to "rebalance" the system, and in the process has conveyed the message that the United States is no longer a reliable trading partner. In addition, the way his policies have been rolled out has maximized uncertainty and left investors and manufacturers confused about how they should proceed. The obvious corollary for other governments is that it might be time to diversify and find new economic partners, and that appears to be happening--with the United States on the sidelines. Here are the most recent examples.
* United Kingdom-India Free Trade Agreement (FTA)
Status: Finished.
Signed in May 2025. India, a notoriously high-tariff country, agreed to cut tariffs on 90 percent of British products, although not to zero. Auto tariffs will decrease from over 100 percent to 10 percent. The agreement is estimated to increase trade by 2040 annually by $34 billion.
* European Union-India FTA
Status: Underway.
Both sides committed to concluding the deal by the end of 2025. So far, 8 of the 20 chapters are finished, primarily the easier ones. Sensitive agricultural products are excluded.
* EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement
Status: Concluded (pending ratification).
The deal includes provisions to eliminate tariffs on over 90 percent of goods traded between the two regions. Mercosur includes Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay, with Bolivia in the process of joining.
UK Accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific
* Partnership (CPTPP)
Status: Entered into force in December 2024.
More than 99 percent of current UK goods exports to CPTPP members, including Peru, Japan, Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, and Vietnam, will be eligible for tariff-free access.
* CPTPP Expansion
Status: Underway.
Multiple applications are under review or invited. These include Costa Rica (underway); Ecuador, Uruguay, Ukraine, and Indonesia (under consideration); and China and Taiwan (no consensus to proceed).
* Canada-Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA)
Status: Finished.
Signed December 2024; implementation planned for 2026. This is not a true FTA, but once fully implemented, over 95 percent of Canadian exports will receive preferential tariff treatment.
* Canada-ASEAN FTA
Status: Under negotiation.
Intended to conclude in 2025. The most recent negotiating round was held in January 2025.
* Japan-China-South Korea Trilateral FTA
Status: Proposed/Ongoing.
Revived discussions as of March 2025. I'm skeptical this one will ever get across the finish line, but the restart of talks is a positive sign.
* European Union-Chile Advanced Framework Agreement
Status: Entered into force in February 2025.
This modernized agreement replaces the 2002 EU-Chile deal, expanding coverage to services, digital trade, and sustainability provisions. It includes tariff-free access on 99.9 percent of EU exports to Chile and creates enhanced protections for EU geographical indications. It is the European Union's first deal to include binding commitments on gender equality.
* Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU)-Iran FTA
Status: Entered into force in May 2025.
This agreement grants Iran preferential access to EAEU markets (Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Armenia, and Kyrgyzstan), covering 80 percent of traded goods and signaling Tehran's pivot toward eastern and southern economic networks amidst continued Western sanctions.
* African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA)
Status: Operational (notified to the World Trade Organization in June 2025).
While the agreement technically came into force in 2019, full implementation and regional customs arrangements are expected to be in 2025. The agreement aims to eliminate tariffs on 90 percent of intra-African trade and is now being integrated into national legal frameworks across over 40 countries.
* Turkiye-United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA)
Status: In force since September 2023.
The agreement aims to increase bilateral trade to $40 billion by 2028. It includes provisions on goods, services, and investment, and is Turkiye's most expansive CEPA in the Gulf region to date.
* EU-Kenya Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA)
Status: Signed in December 2023; pending full implementation.
This bilateral agreement within the European Union's broader East African Community strategy allows Kenya duty-free access to EU markets and commits both sides to sustainable development and digital cooperation.
* United Kingdom-Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) FTA
Status: Under negotiation.
The United Kingdom and the GCC (consisting of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) have completed multiple rounds of negotiations, aiming for conclusion by the end of 2025. The deal would mark one of the United Kingdom's most commercially valuable post-Brexit trade pacts.
* Indonesia-South Korea CEPA
Status: In force since January 2023.
This agreement eliminates tariffs on over 90 percent of goods traded and includes commitments on services and investment, including digital trade and IP protection.
While some of the trade agreements listed above predate the current administration, their recent acceleration and finalization reflect a strategic response to U.S. trade policy uncertainty. Trump-era tariffs and Biden's industrial policy have disrupted expectations of U.S. leadership in global trade. In response, many countries are hedging by deepening trade ties elsewhere--particularly through regional and bilateral agreements that bypass the United States entirely. These efforts aim to secure stable market access, diversify supply chains, and insulate economies from the ripple effects of American protectionism.
Not all of these are going to succeed, and so far, none of them are really "gold standard" free trade agreements. But if you look at the hundreds of FTAs already registered with the World Trade Organization (WTO), most of them are not perfect agreements either, usually because they exclude agriculture. The interesting thing about these new agreements is how much they are like the old ones. They focus on trade liberalization, breaking down trade barriers, and promoting market access--the same goals that administrations prior to those of Trump and Biden pursued. They don't achieve free trade, but neither did the older ones. Progress in that direction has been erratic--two steps forward and one step backward--and current negotiations are no different.
What is noteworthy is that the world is still making progress, in the same way and in the same direction as always. The difference is that the United States is not part of that process. This puts the United States in a new position--being on the sidelines watching as the world moves on in the same direction it has been moving for decades. The picture becomes more compelling when examining the evolution of regional trade agreements worldwide. With 619 cumulative regional trade agreements in force as of 2025, WTO data shows a steady increase in the number of such agreements over time.
In contrast, the United States has been leading for the past two administrations in a different direction. The last Free Trade Agreement in force between the United States and Panama goes back to 2012, which slows down trade liberalization and promotes industrial policy in the name of national security. This time, however, it appears few others are following, although one conspicuous exception is China, which seems to be pursuing similar policies on its own initiative.
Controversially, China has been benefiting the most from free trade agreements under the WTO ruling system. After joining the WTO in December 2001, China's average tariff rate fell sharply, from over 30 percent to around 7--8 percent. While this reduction made imports cheaper, it also enabled China to integrate more deeply into global value chains. Firms could import high-quality inputs and re-export finished goods at scale. The economic certainty provided by WTO membership enabled an influx of foreign direct investment and access to Western markets, which paved the way for explosive export growth: from $516 billion in 2001 to over $4 trillion by 2017.
While China initially undertook some trade liberalizing measures--benefiting from WTO accession, reduced tariffs, and global supply chain integration--its policy stance has shifted in recent years. The launch of "Made in China 2025" reflects a more state-directed model, with heavy public investment in strategic sectors like semiconductors, renewables, and robotics. The United States responded in kind during the Biden administration, and as a result China and the United States are converging in their embrace of industrial policy, though their paths have been different: China's industrial push accompanied decades of export-led growth, whereas the United States is retreating from trade liberalization more abruptly, citing national security concerns.
The fact that the two biggest national economies in the world are pursuing similar policies that lean heavily on protection in the name of national security doubtless gives other countries pause since so many of them have significant economic stakes in both China and the United States--After the new U.S. tariffs, the WTO estimates a 1 percent contraction in global trade volumes, warning about possible cascading effects from trade diversion as companies reroute goods to countries with preferential access. It is beginning to appear, though, that third-country strategies are additive, emphasizing diversification into new markets while not entirely abandoning their larger partners. This is the time-honored "don't put all your eggs in one basket" approach that has been good advice for centuries.
It is not, however, good news for the United States, particularly U.S. exporters, who will find themselves foreclosed from the market access advantages of other countries' agreements that leave U.S. businesses on the outside looking in. Ironically, the United States' new insistence on preferential agreements rather than those based on the most-favored-nation principle will end up harming U.S. exporters as other agreements adopt the same approach and extend their benefits only to the participating countries.
It means the United States may be left behind as countries find new partners and the world may move on without the United States, but at the same time, this is also surprisingly reassuring. The new negotiations demonstrate that the announcement of the old order's death was greatly exaggerated, and that the case for trade liberalization remains a strong one. Since the current administration is not going to change its worldview, the challenge for U.S. companies is to find ways to stay in the game even as our government has withdrawn from it.
* * *
William A. Reinsch holds the Scholl Chair in International Business at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Safae Irghis is a researcher with the Economics Program and Scholl Chair in International Business at CSIS.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/trade-liberalizing-efforts-other-countries-contradict-us-policies
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: Reforming the Reformers - Seville Conference Must Upgrade Credit Rating Agencies
WASHINGTON, July 3 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on July 2, 2025:* * *
Reforming the Reformers: Seville Conference Must Upgrade Credit Rating Agencies
By Jo Puri
The high cost of debt and consequent debt servicing have meant that financing for environment, climate adaptation, and food security gets short shrift when there's a debt crisis. Credit rating agencies and international regulations need to change to realize the needs of developing countries.
At the United Nations' 4th International Conference on Financing for Development, currently ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 3 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on July 2, 2025: * * * Reforming the Reformers: Seville Conference Must Upgrade Credit Rating Agencies By Jo Puri The high cost of debt and consequent debt servicing have meant that financing for environment, climate adaptation, and food security gets short shrift when there's a debt crisis. Credit rating agencies and international regulations need to change to realize the needs of developing countries. At the United Nations' 4th International Conference on Financing for Development, currentlytaking place in Spain, the priorities of developing countries need to be up front and center. The latest outcome document for the conference underscores this. Any final agreement from the conference in Seville that ignores this call will mean that the meeting did not deliver.
A key output of the meeting should be a reform of the credit rating system. Today, Fitch Ratings Inc., Moody's Ratings, and S&P Global Ratings are the main credit rating agencies of the world. The credit rating architecture determines the cost of capital that developing countries must pay to borrow. In 2023, many developing countries paid more than 5 percent more than the developed world for lending from official creditors.
An important component within the envisioned outcome is the establishment of the Africa Credit Rating Agency and to "fully operationalize it." If adopted, this will finally realize the specialized and different needs and contexts of African countries in the international financial architecture. It would be good if other developing countries, including countries from Asia Pacific including India as well as Small Island Developing States and landlocked countries joined this call, to not just focus on operationalizing the recently established Africa Credit Rating Agency, but to overhaul the global credit rating architecture so that the reality of developing countries is recognized.
More than 85 percent of the global population lives in developing countries, and almost 45 percent of the world's GDP is accounted for by emerging and developing economies. The time has come for international financial architecture to consider the needs of developing countries, as "mainstream" and not an afterthought.
Why is the credit rating architecture important? And how does it affect international lending by international financing institutions like multilateral development banks (MDBs) and development financing institutions (DFIs)?
Financial instruments deployed by MDBs and DFIs include direct debt and equity (at both market rate and below market rate terms), lines of credit to commercial banks, intermediated investments via funds (including impact funds), guarantees, and technical assistance. They also provide concessional finance, which mobilises other private investors. Today, most lending from MDBs and DFIs focuses on investments in infrastructure: 34 percent of concessional and market-rate finance provided in the Global South in 2021 (roughly $2.5 billion) focused on this sector. This compares with only 7 percent focused on the agriculture sector in the same year, and far less on climate adaptation.
However, conservative financial regulations and international financial regulations constrain investments in the Global South. Regulations such Basel III and IV (the international regulatory framework developed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, first set up in 2008-2009 to respond to financial crises) and reporting requirements of the financial system such as International Financial Reporting Standard 9 and 10 (IFRS9 and IFRS 10, respectively) are biased against incorporating the realities of the developed world. These regulations and standards also affect lending from national and public development banks that are similarly deterred from investing in agriculture and climate adaptation.
These reporting systems penalize investments in rural sectors, and agricultural sectors. As a result, banks (multilateral and national banks) end up allocating their capital to less risky sectors that have, for instance, more regular payments than the seasonal nature of agriculture allows, and those that offer more predictable returns and require lower capital charges. High capital adequacy requirements also limit banks' overall lending capacity, increasing the opportunity cost of lending to businesses that are perceived as higher risk and less profitable (e.g., smaller or less formal businesses in rural areas).
As a result of these requirements, in East African countries, Central Banks require domestic commercial banks to hold between 10 and 15 percent of their capital, well above Basel III requirements (which is 8.5 percent). This exacerbates the low levels of commercial bank lending to the agriculture sector in the region, which in 2019 averaged 6 percent despite the sector contributing roughly 60 percent to GDP.
This is not all. Now, new Basel IV regulations require banks to take a standardised approach to determining risk-weighted assets (RWAs). These disincentivise global banks from financing rural infrastructure projects in the Global South, which are perceived as being risky. Before the implementation of Basel IV began in 2023, banks could use proprietary models that considered investment history to allocate risk weightings to different assets. Now they need to use standardised capital weightings that assign higher risk weightings to investments in countries that have low national credit ratings, and to loans with longer tenors. Additionally, standardised approaches to calculating RWAs do not account for the reduced risk associated with banks--or indeed other investors--that invest in a senior tranche of a blended finance structure where a first-loss guarantee has been provided by an impact investor or DFI. This has also meant that participating in blended finance confers no additional advantage to investors, irrespective of the first risk loss being taken by another party or investor.
This skewed nature of risk appraisal also affects MDB lending, even though MDBs are not expected to adhere to the same regulations as commercial banks. MDBs target AAA credit ratings from major credit ratings agencies (e.g., S&P, Moody's, and Fitch) to ensure they are viewed as creditworthy and can borrow at low cost. While this means that MDBs can pass on the benefit of low-cost borrowing to borrowers (including rural businesses), the reality is that MDBs end up managing their capital so they can get these credit ratings. This limits MDB's overall capacity to take on ventures that are perceived as being risky, including those perceived for rural or agricultural investments.
A recent paper by Sachs et al. lays this out succinctly. The challenge is not the amount of capital--indeed, rural and adaptation financing requires a relatively small amount, $250-300 billion per year by 2030, respectively, which, compared to the many other gaps, is relatively small.
Developing countries are far more agricultural and rural. Lending and borrowing in these contexts should not be considered "below investment grade," which in turn requires banks to write down the asset. Rural sectors such as agriculture and tourism are generally perceived as "high risk" due to their cyclical nature, seasonality, and exposure to external shocks. Looking at 16 African countries in 2022, the United Nations Development Programme found that the misalignment of credit ratings cost these countries $74 billion in lost investment opportunities and (higher) interest payments.
Seville must ask for a reform of the international rating architecture that causes high liquidity and key sectors in developing areas to be rated as high risk.
* * *
Jo Puri is an adjunct fellow (non-resident) with the Sustainable Development and Resilience Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/reforming-reformers-seville-conference-must-upgrade-credit-rating-agencies
[Category: ThinkTank]