Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
CSIS Issues Commentary: Confident Beijing Welcomes President Trump
WASHINGTON, May 12 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on May 11, 2026, by Scott Kennedy, senior adviser and Trustee Chair in Chinese Business and Economics:* * *
A Confident Beijing Welcomes President Trump
When President Donald Trump arrives in Beijing this week to meet with Chinese Communist Party (CCP) General Secretary and President Xi Jinping, he will find a city that has changed remarkably in the eight-and-a-half years since he last visited. In November 2017, China's economy was still largely dependent on infrastructure-led growth, and ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 12 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on May 11, 2026, by Scott Kennedy, senior adviser and Trustee Chair in Chinese Business and Economics: * * * A Confident Beijing Welcomes President Trump When President Donald Trump arrives in Beijing this week to meet with Chinese Communist Party (CCP) General Secretary and President Xi Jinping, he will find a city that has changed remarkably in the eight-and-a-half years since he last visited. In November 2017, China's economy was still largely dependent on infrastructure-led growth, andthe leadership was extremely skittish about how to deal with a highly unpredictable real estate mogul-turned-politician. As a result, the leadership was careful never to confront President Trump, and it did much to stroke his ego, with a high point being a tour of the treasures held within the Forbidden City, the home of China's emperors during the Ming and Qing dynasties. A little over two years later, in January 2020, Beijing acceded to a lopsided trade agreement, the so-called Phase One deal, pledging to increase imports by $200 billion and to implement a series of regulatory reforms to protect intellectual property.
How times have changed. My observations and discussions in Beijing with a wide range of officials, businesspeople, and scholars over the past 18 months, including an intensive two-and-a-half-week trip in late April and early May, convince me that China's leadership is genuinely confident about its ability to out-maneuver President Trump and gain the upper hand over the United States on China's core foreign policy interests.
An Upgraded Capital
China's confidence stems from three sources.
First, important elements of China's economy have dramatically improved since President Trump's last visit. China has gone from being a tech follower to a peer competitor of the United States. China's innovation ecosystem--funding, talent, research and development, the promotion of intellectual property (yes, you read that correctly), and manufacturing capacity--has propelled China across a wide range of sectors, including electric vehicles (EVs), high-speed rail, robotics, pharmaceuticals, solar, wind, materials, and more. If the president had come a few days earlier, he would have been impressed by the cars on display at the Beijing Auto Show. Dozens of producers featured EVs with longer ranges and safer batteries, increasingly capable driver-assistance and autonomy features, and decked out interiors with dazzling infotainment systems.
Once President Trump does make his way to Beijing, he will also see that the capital city itself has changed. Per capita income in Beijing is still only $13,000, compared to $111,000 in Washington, D.C., and approximately $52,000 in New York City, but life expectancy in Beijing (83.9 years) now beats out both Washington (77.4 years) and New York City (83.2 years). Beijing's progress mirrors the growth of its subway system, which reached 565 miles in length and carried 3.5 billion passengers in 2025. New York's subway system is longer (665 miles), but it carried only 1.3 billion passengers in 2025. And Washington's system is less than a quarter the distance (130 miles) and carries only 4 percent (147 million) of the number of passengers. Growing use of public transportation, more EVs, and the movement of manufacturing to other provinces may explain why Beijing's air has continued to improve. The levels of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) have dropped by over half since 2017, with the number of clear days rising from 226 to 311 over the same period. And although crime is down substantially in the United States, Chinese streets are still safer.
Beijing Tacos
The second factor buoying the Chinese leadership's confidence is their record of effectively deflecting U.S. pressure and turning the tables on President Trump over the past year. The administration's "Liberation Day," April 2, 2025, which saw Washington impose sky-high tariffs on countries around the world, including China, turned out to be Beijing's liberation day. With its blocking of rare earths exports, Beijing forced the Trump administration to lower its tariffs and agree to limit further technology measures against China. When the United States attempted to extend existing export controls to all of the subsidiaries of Chinese firms already blacklisted (the "Affiliates Rule") in September 2025, Beijing countered by announcing a global regime regulating products that contained rare earths from China. Instead of re-escalating, in late October 2025, in Busan, South Korea, the two sides agreed to a one-year ceasefire, capping potential restrictions and giving Beijing more time to focus on expanding its tech capabilities and handling various internal challenges. And Beijing probably could not have believed its good luck when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the president's International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs in February 2026, further reducing the barriers to Beijing's exports.
China's success in getting President Trump to cry uncle confirms its analysis that one can successfully resist his pressure by credibly threatening to use coercive tools that can impose substantial pain where it hurts him most--such as a falling stock market. Just about every official I spoke with in Beijing in the last six months knows the acronym TACO stands for "Trump always chickens out." Moreover, officials explained that they have figured out how to use these threats to avoid further escalation and maintain a stable relationship.
Beijing's ability to deflect Washington is also buoyed by a recognition that the president's concerns are quite narrow. Not only is the administration focused primarily on economic issues (and has shown scant concern for human rights), but it is also mainly pursuing specific commercial arrangements, for example, sales of aircraft and agricultural products and investment deals. These arrangements may be couched in the form of a new "Board of Trade" and a "Board of Investment," but discussion in these bodies likely will not target, as the United States has before, China's broader industrial policy system, which is a key source of China's growing imbalances with the rest of the world. Moreover, Washington's use of arbitrarily set tariffs, industrial policy, and other economic coercive instruments means it can no longer press Beijing to meet multilateral commitments Washington itself has abandoned.
Escaping Isolation
The final factor uplifting Beijing's spirits is that it has made progress in the competition for support from the rest of the world. The pandemic and the Biden administration's effort to strengthen partnerships with allies and like-minded countries left Beijing on the defensive as its actions were viewed as a key source of global economic and security risks. But the tide has begun to turn. As worries about the direction of the United States have grown over the past six months, a series of Western leaders have beaten a path to Beijing's door, among them: South Korean President Lee Jae-myung, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez. In just about every instance, Beijing has made minimal concessions--mainly withdrawing previously imposed penalties--but it has been able to gain a broader reset in relations.
These visits reflect a widespread view among foreign countries, including close U.S. allies, that, for the time being, decoupling from China is not an option. Despite deepening worries about growing imbalances that could threaten some of their own industries, the value of commercial ties to their economies is just too great. This conclusion even applies to a wide range of advanced technologies, where countries would prefer, if possible, to mitigate the attendant economic and security risks while continuing to do business. And where tariffs are rising, Beijing is in discussions to gain access to these sectors through direct investment. These trends reassure Beijing that it will be able to continue to successfully limit other countries' efforts to restrict trade and investment ties in any meaningful way.
In short, Beijing believes it has the technological prowess and diplomatic skill to effectively push back against the United States and avoid ever being isolated, regardless of Washington's efforts.
Underlying Problems
All of the above is not to say that all is well in the Middle Kingdom. To the contrary, China's leadership faces some serious problems. Most important is the country's weakening macroeconomic picture. Despite (or perhaps because of) the massive investments directed at advanced technology, production far outstrips domestic demand, causing what China refers to as "involution." This has meant growing inventories and falling prices, and a renewed dependence on exports for growth.
But most worrying are signs of rising unemployment. Even though the official urban unemployment rate is just over 5 percent, many interlocutors told stories of both college grads and blue-collar workers being unable to find jobs, a problem that many expect to worsen with the growing adoption of AI and robotics. Also clouding the picture is a weakening fiscal picture, with insufficient revenues available to cover growing needs. The result could be a "Slow Tech Dragon" which produces world-beating gizmos yet is weighed down by ever-expanding debt and rising inequality.
The second problem is politics. President Xi Jinping looks to be firmly in control and on a path to reappointment for a fourth term when the 21st National Congress of the CCP meets in late 2027. However, China's politics seem awkwardly unsettled. Xi has carried out an anticorruption campaign for seemingly his entire time in office, which has translated into a shrinking number of members of the CCP's Central Committee being available to attend major meetings. Currently, he is in the midst of carrying out a massive purge within the People's Liberation Army (PLA), including very senior generals whom he himself appointed, ostensibly because of widespread corruption. These developments raise reasonable questions about whether elite politics are less settled than they appear.
And third, although Beijing has stabilized official ties with many countries and negative attitudes of China have receded among publics around the world, China's relationship with the rest of the world is still uneasy. While Beijing may gain by others seeing it as the "stable" choice relative to a Trumpian United States gripped by social and political tensions internally and behaving more erratically internationally, China's heavy hand in its economy and politics, its focus on self-reliance, and its deep anxieties about potential foreign interference in its domestic affairs make it more difficult to generate broad-based goodwill among the publics of other countries.
If President Trump looks out his car window while making his way around Beijing, he might notice the decline in the presence of foreigners. The number of expatriate business executives (and their families) living in China has plummeted since his last visit. Whereas there were just under 12,000 American students in 2017, the number is below 2,000 today. And the number of foreign scholars doing field work has dropped dramatically, as formal and informal barriers to interviews and surveys have grown. Although China has rolled out visa-free travel and foreign tourist numbers are up, in many ways, China feels less welcoming than a decade ago. This growing sense of divide between China and many parts of the rest of the world means greater misunderstanding, the possibility for rising tensions, and more difficulty cooperating to solve common challenges, such as the risks associated with artificial intelligence and climate change.
A Pair of Twos
The problems besetting China's macroeconomy, its uneasy politics, and simmering tensions with others are far from universally recognized in China, but they are still substantial constraints. Beijing's confidence in managing relations with Washington derives from the fact that it has been able to gain the upper hand over Washington despite these issues. Doing so is in part a product of China's skillful diplomacy, but it is also a result of the United States' own missteps.
China's problems, particularly on the economic front, explain why Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in April 2025 said China was "playing with a pair of twos" and, hence, should not escalate tensions with the United States. The treasury secretary's comments also reflect a high degree of confidence within the Trump administration that the United States has so much economic and military leverage that it can make any competitor yield to its demands. It could be that President Trump's success in getting the Phase One deal in his first term and the concessions other trading partners made to the United States left him unprepared for China's more aggressive approach this time around.
When Trump and Xi meet this week, both will be going into this high-stakes game highly confident of the cards they are holding. The rest of the world will be watching to see whether President Xi is able to continue to amass more chips or whether President Trump will do something unexpected to throw Beijing off balance and reclaim the advantage.
* * *
Scott Kennedy is a senior adviser and trustee chair in Chinese business and economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/confident-beijing-welcomes-president-trump
[Category: ThinkTank]
American Action Forum: Student Loan Lenders - How Do Different Options Stack Up?
WASHINGTON, May 12 (TNSxrep) -- The American Action Forum issued the following research on May 11, 2026, by Fiscal Policy Director Jordan Haring:* * *
Student Loan Lenders: How Do Different Options Stack Up?
Executive Summary
* The United States' student loan market has long been dominated by federal government-issued direct loans, which are broadly accessible and do not incorporate traditional credit risk pricing; these program features create repayment risk and subsidy costs, leading to the enactment of reforms that expand the market for for-profit and nonprofit/state-based lenders with ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 12 (TNSxrep) -- The American Action Forum issued the following research on May 11, 2026, by Fiscal Policy Director Jordan Haring: * * * Student Loan Lenders: How Do Different Options Stack Up? Executive Summary * The United States' student loan market has long been dominated by federal government-issued direct loans, which are broadly accessible and do not incorporate traditional credit risk pricing; these program features create repayment risk and subsidy costs, leading to the enactment of reforms that expand the market for for-profit and nonprofit/state-based lenders withdifferent underwriting standards and pricing structures.
* The One Big Beautiful Bill put new limits on the federal student loan program, increasing attention on for-profit and nonprofit/state-based alternatives that may offer borrowers lower rates and lifetime repayment costs.
* This study compares the lending patterns of federal, for-profit, and nonprofit/state-based lenders and finds that unlike federal loans, both for-profit and nonprofit/state-based lenders consider borrowers' credit risk, concentrating lending disproportionately to those with strong credit profiles; moreover, nonprofit/state-based lenders issued a substantially larger share of loans at lower interest rate tiers than for-profit lenders, including 88 percent of loans between 5.00-8.99 percent and only 8 percent at 9.00 percent or higher.
Introduction
The United States' student loan market has long been dominated by federal government-issued direct loans, which are broadly accessible and do not incorporate traditional credit risk pricing. The federal student loan program prioritizes broad access, with fixed interest rates. Debt-to-income ratios, FICO scores, and the ability to repay are not considered when determining a borrower's eligibility for a loan. These features, however, expose taxpayers to repayment risk and subsidy costs. Reforms to the federal student loan program in the One Big Beautiful Bill will expand the market for for-profit and nonprofit/state-based lenders with different underwriting standards and pricing structures.
This study compares the lending patterns of federal, for-profit, and nonprofit/state-based lenders. Assessing alternatives to federal student lending is useful for understanding how underwriting standards, pricing mechanisms, and institutional incentives shape credit allocation in higher education finance. These alternatives may also limit ultimate taxpayer risk.
Compared to federal loans, both for-profit and nonprofit/state-based lenders consider borrowers' credit risk, concentrating disproportionately to those with strong credit profiles; in academic year (AY) 2024-2025, 52 percent and 72 percent of these loans, respectively, were issued to borrowers with FICO scores of 740 and above.
While for-profit lenders are driven primarily by profit, the mission-driven status of nonprofit/state-based lenders means they reinvest their earnings into borrower benefits, including offering loans at lower interest rate tiers. In AY 2024-2025, 88 percent of nonprofit/state-based loans were made at interest rates between 5.00-8.99 percent and only 8 percent at 9.00 percent or higher; these patterns indicate that, within the risk-priced segment of the market, nonprofit/state-based lenders tend to offer lower rates than their for-profit counterparts.
This is important as lower rates can reduce lifetime borrowing costs, improve repayment outcomes, and expand affordability for creditworthy students who exhaust federal aid. Such pricing may indicate that nonprofit/state-based lenders operate with lower capital costs, narrower margins, or mission-driven reinvestment structures that allow savings to be passed through to borrowers. In that sense, nonprofit/state-based lending could represent a complementary model within the broader student loan market - one that combines credit underwriting with moderate pricing relative to fully profit-maximizing firms.
Overview of Federal, For-Profit, and Nonprofit/State-based Lenders
The federal student loan apparatus aims to provide access to higher education financing regardless of family income or credit history. Undergraduate borrowers can access Direct Subsidized Loans or Direct Unsubsidized Loans, while graduate borrowers can take out Direct Subsidized Loans or Grad PLUS loans. Parents can take out Parent PLUS Loans. Federal lending is not subject to federal or state consumer protection laws or the publication of an annual percentage rate (APR). As a result, it does not require traditional credit underwriting for most borrowers, and interest rates are fixed annually by statute. The outstanding federal student loan balance is $1.7 trillion, with 42.8 million borrowers owing an average of $39,547 in student loan debt.
There are differences between the Direct Loan and Parent PLUS programs. The obligation of both subsidized and unsubsidized direct loans falls on the student borrower while the obligation of Parent PLUS loans falls solely on the parent borrower. And while the federal government offers borrower benefits - including Public Service Loan Forgiveness, deferment and forbearance options, and multiple repayment plans that include income-driven repayment (IDR) - they are only available to direct loan borrowers. Parent PLUS borrowers have limited borrower benefits, and the One Big Beautiful Bill made them even more stringent by eliminating IDR for new parent borrowers and existing parent borrowers that do not consolidate their Parent PLUS loans by July 1, 2026.
For-profit lenders - which include banks, credit unions, and specialized finance companies - operate under a market-based model driven primarily by profit maximization. For-profit lenders assess borrowers' creditworthiness, often requiring a cosigner for undergraduate borrowers with little credit history. Interest rates on private loans are either fixed or variable and are based on risk. Loans issued by for-profit lenders lack the extensive borrower benefits available to federal borrowers; therefore, they are best suited for borrowers with strong credit who will have the post-graduation earning potential to repay their loans. While data for the entirety of the for-profit loan market is not publicly available, a reasonable proxy is Sallie Mae, the largest for-profit student loan provider in the United States. In AY 2024-2025, Sallie Mae issued 125,745 loans totaling nearly $1.8 billion. The average loan amount was $14,071.
Nonprofit/state-based lenders - which include state-based education finance entities or independent nonprofit organizations (501(c)(3) organizations) - operate under a mission-driven model that prioritizes affordability and borrower success over profit maximization. Nonprofit/state-based lenders assess borrower creditworthiness and tend to provide loans at lower fixed interest rates than private lenders. Their mission-driven status means they reinvest their earnings into borrower benefits that include lower interest rates, as well as flexible repayment options or targeted financial literacy initiatives. The data cited in this study for non-profit/state-based lenders are the aggregated data from 18 nonprofit/state-based lenders. It does not represent data for all nonprofit/state-based lenders. In AY 2024-2025, nonprofit/state-based lenders issued 76,700 loans totaling over $1.3 billion. The average loan amount was $17,282. For more on nonprofit/state-based lenders, see here.
Comparing Lending Patterns
The interest rates on the various types of federal student loans are set annually by statute and the interest rate on 10-year Treasury notes - thus, the interest rates are fixed and do not vary across borrowers. Unlike for-profit and nonprofit/state-based lenders, the federal government does not look at debt-to-income ratios, FICO scores, or the ability to repay when determining a borrower's eligibility for a federal student loan. In AY 2024-2025, the fixed interest rate on undergraduate Direct Subsidized Loans and Direct Unsubsidized loans was 6.53 percent; it was 8.08 percent for graduate Direct Unsubsidized Loans, and 9.08 percent for Graduate Direct PLUS Loans and Parent PLUS loans. The federal government also charges borrowers a one-time, upfront origination fee in exchange for processing and disbursing loans to them. In AY 2024, the origination fee for Direct Subsidized and Direct Unsubsidized loans was 1.057 percent; it was 4.228 percent for Graduate Direct PLUS and Parent PLUS loans.
For-profit lenders set interest rates based on individual borrower risk and market competition. They offer fixed or variable interest rates on loans that are determined by credit score, income, and cosigner status. Unlike the federal government, for-profit lenders combine the interest rate and any origination fee to calculate the APR on a loan. Like for-profit lenders, nonprofit/state-based lenders set interest rates based on individual borrower risk. Yet because these lenders are mission-based and not motivated by profit maximization, they tend to offer lower interest rates to borrowers than for-profit lenders.
As noted above, in AY 2024-2025 Sallie Mae issued 125,745 loans totaling nearly $1.8 billion, with an average loan of $14,071, while nonprofit/state-based lenders issued 76,700 loans totaling over $1.3 billion, with an average loan of $17,282.
To accurately compare lending patterns, this study used available data on loans to create four separate ranges of interest rates: 0.00-4.99 percent, 5.00-6.99 percent, 7.00-8.99 percent, and 10.00 percent and above.
In AY 2024-2025, Sallie Mae, a proxy for all for-profit lenders, issued 12 percent of its loans (13,138 loans totaling $211 million) in the 0.00-4.99 percent range, 9 percent of its loans (10,913 loans totaling $156 million) in the 5.00-6.99 percent range, 10 percent of its loans (11,690 loans totaling $173 million) in the 7.00-8.99 percent range, and 69 percent of its loans (90,004 loans totaling $1.2 billion) at interest rates of 9.00 percent and above.
Meanwhile, nonprofit/state-based lenders in AY 2024-2025 issued 4 percent of their loans (2,658 loans totaling $54 million) in the 0.00-4.99 percent range, 45 percent of their loans (34,849 loans totaling $600 million) in the 5.00-6.99 percent range, 43 percent of their loans (32,774 loans totaling $571 million) in the 7.00-8.99 percent range, and 8 percent of their loans (6,519 loans totaling $102 million) at interest rates of 9.00 percent and above.
* * *
Chart: Student Loans Issued by Sallie Mae and Nonprofit/State-based Lenders in AY 2024-2025 (by interest rates)
* * *
In AY 2024-2025, Sallie Mae issued an average loan of $16,038 in the 0.00-4.99 percent range, 14,323 in the 5.00-6.99 percent range, $14,793 in the 7.00-8.99 percent range, and $13,659 at an interest rate of 9.00 percent and above. Nonprofit/state-based lenders, meanwhile, issued an average loan of $20,182 in the 0.00-4.99 percent range, $17,216 in the 5.00-6.99 percent range, $17,435 in the 7.00-8.99 percent range, and $15,682 at an interest rate of 9.00 percent and above. Nonprofit/state-based lenders issued higher average loans than Sallie Mae at all interest rate ranges. Notably, the average loan amount issued by nonprofit/state-based lenders was higher at lower interest rates - for example, an average loan of $20,182 in the 0.00-4.99 percent range versus an average loan of $15,682 at interest rates of 9.00 percent and above.
Both for-profit and nonprofit/state-based lenders take creditworthiness into account when issuing student loans. For an accurate comparison of lending patterns, this study used the available data to create three ranges of FICO scores: below 700, 700-739, and 740 and above. The first two ranges are considered "good" and the third range "very good" by FICO standards.
In AY 2024-2025, Sallie Mae issued 8 percent of its loans (9,691 loans totaling $126 million) to borrowers with FICO scores below 700, 40 percent of its loans (50,765 loans totaling $693 million) to borrowers with FICO scores between 700-739, and 52 percent of its loans (65,289 loans totaling $950 million) to borrowers with FICO scores of 740 and above.
Nonprofit/state-based lenders in AY 2024-2025 issued 7 percent of their loans (5,477 loans totaling $80 million) to borrowers with FICO below 700, 21 percent of their loans (16,087 loans totaling $268 million) to borrowers with FICO scores between 700-739, and 72 percent of their loans (54,215 loans totaling $969 million) to borrowers with FICO scores of 740 and above. The key takeaway is that both for-profit and nonprofit/state-based lenders issue a greater percentage of their loans to borrowers with "very good" credit ratings than to those with "good" credit ratings.
* * *
Chart: Student Loans Issued by Sallie Mae and Nonprofit/State-based Lenders in AY 2024-2025 (by FICO Score)
* * *
Of the 9,691 loans made by for-profit lenders to borrowers with credit scores below 700 in AY 2024-2025, 19 percent (1,847 loans) were made at interest rates between 0.00-4.99 percent, 9 percent (864 loans) at interest rates between 5.00-6.99 percent, 1 percent (92 loans) at interest rates between 7.00-8.99 percent, and 71 percent (6,888 loans) at interest rates of 9.00 percent and above. Of the 5,477 loans made by nonprofit/state-based lenders to borrowers with credit scores below 700, 0 percent (no loans) were made at interest rates between 0.00-4.99 percent, 30 percent (1,666 loans) at interest rates between 5.00-6.99 percent, 41 percent at interest rates between 7.00-8.99 percent, and 29 percent at interest rates of 9.00 percent and above.
For-profit lenders made 50,765 loans to borrowers with credit scores between 700-739 in AY 2024-2025. Of them, 5 percent (2,501 loans) were made at interest rates between 0.00-4.99 percent, 3 percent (1,332 loans) at interest rates between 5.00-6.99 percent, 1 percent (482 loans) at interest rates between 7.00-8.99 percent, and 92 percent (46,450 loans) at interest rates of 9.00 percent and above. Nonprofit/state-based lenders made 16,097 loans, of which 0.4 percent (61 loans) were made at interest rates between 0.00-4.99 percent, 38 percent (6,067 loans) at interest rates between 5.00-6.99 percent, 44 percent (7,020 loans) at interest rates between 7.00-8.99 percent, and 18 percent (2,939 loans) at interest rates of 9.00 percent and above.
In AY 2024-2025, for-profit lenders made 65,289 loans to borrowers with credit scores of 740 and above. Of these, 13 percent (8,790 loans) were made at interest rates between 0.00-4.99 percent, 13 percent (8,717 loans) at interest rates between 5.00-6.99 percent, 17 percent (11,116 loans) at interest rates between 7.00-8.99 percent, and 56 percent (36,666 loans) at interest rates of 9.00 percent and above. Nonprofit/state-based lenders made 54,215 loans, of which 5 percent (2,597 loans) were made at interest rates between 0.00-4.99 percent, 49 percent (26,300 loans) at interest rates between 5.00-6.99 percent, 43 percent (23,391 loans) at interest rates between 7.00-8.99 percent, and 4 percent (1,927 loans) at interest rates of 9.00 percent and above.
Conclusion
In the wake of recent federal student loan reforms, it is important for both policymakers and the public to understand options for higher education financing. In comparing the lending patterns of federal, for-profit, and nonprofit/state-based lenders, this study finds that while both for-profit and nonprofit/state-based lenders consider borrowers' credit risk, nonprofit/state-based lenders tend to offer lower interest rates than their for-profit counterparts to borrowers with lower credit scores. The policy implications of this are notable, as lower rates can reduce lifetime borrowing costs, improve repayment outcomes, and expand affordability for creditworthy students who exhaust federal aid.
* * *
Jordan Haring is the Director of Fiscal Policy at the American Action Forum
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/39234/
[Category: ThinkTank]
America First Policy Institute: Rules From Ed to Simplify Student Loan Payments and Lower College Costs
WASHINGTON, May 12 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on May 11, 2026:* * *
New Rules from Ed to Simplify Student Loan Payments & Lower College Costs
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI), has released the following statement from Dr. Michael A. Shires, vice chair for Education Opportunity, on the U.S. Department of Education's newly released rules which intend to lower college costs and simplify student loan repayments:
"Students today pay more than ever to gain an education, and many students are handed crippling debt along with their diplomas. The new ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 12 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on May 11, 2026: * * * New Rules from Ed to Simplify Student Loan Payments & Lower College Costs The America First Policy Institute (AFPI), has released the following statement from Dr. Michael A. Shires, vice chair for Education Opportunity, on the U.S. Department of Education's newly released rules which intend to lower college costs and simplify student loan repayments: "Students today pay more than ever to gain an education, and many students are handed crippling debt along with their diplomas. The newrules dramatically simplify the confusing and convoluted student loan application and repayment processes.
Forgiving all student loans was poor policy and left taxpayers holding the bag.
With the Department's new rules, the pressure will be on colleges to curb tuition growth, and students will have clearer and better options when it comes time to repay their loans."
AFPI has conducted extensive research on the state of the U.S. higher education system. To read more, click here (https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/initiative/higher-education-reform-initiative).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/new-rules-from-ed-to-simplify-student-loan-payments-lower-college-costs
[Category: ThinkTank]
America First Policy Institute Issues Commentary: Remember the Women Holding Foster Families Together
WASHINGTON, May 12 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following commentary on May 11, 2026, by Chair Stacey Schieffelin and Advisory Council member Angela O'Neill, both of the America First Women's Initiative:* * *
Remember the Women Holding Foster Families Together
Every politician in Washington claims to care about children, but America's foster care system too often tears families apart before it supports them, sweeping vulnerable children into the hands of bureaucracy and leaving thousands of young people to age out without stability, belonging, or hope.
Every year, as Mother's ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 12 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following commentary on May 11, 2026, by Chair Stacey Schieffelin and Advisory Council member Angela O'Neill, both of the America First Women's Initiative: * * * Remember the Women Holding Foster Families Together Every politician in Washington claims to care about children, but America's foster care system too often tears families apart before it supports them, sweeping vulnerable children into the hands of bureaucracy and leaving thousands of young people to age out without stability, belonging, or hope. Every year, as Mother'sDay coincides with National Foster Care Month, we're reminded of who bears the brunt of that failure: mothers, grandmothers, foster moms, and adoptive moms fighting to hold families together.
This issue is deeply personal to us.
One of us has had the privilege of adopting four children. We have seen the beauty, resilience, and extraordinary potential of children who simply needed someone to believe they were worth fighting for. We have also seen firsthand how broken systems can make healing harder instead of easier.
At the America First Women's Initiative, we believe that strong families are the foundation of a strong Republic. That means foster care reform can't stop at growing government programs or creating more red tape. Foster care reform must restore the role of family, empower communities, and put children at the center of the conversation.
For decades, America's child welfare system has strayed from its purpose. Children must be protected from genuine abuse and danger. But today, too many removals happen because of poverty, temporary hardship, housing instability, or bureaucratic standards rather than immediate threats to a child's safety.
Research shows children thrive when connected to family and community support systems, whenever safely possible. Kinship care by grandparents, relatives, and extended family leads to stronger emotional and developmental outcomes than traditional foster placements. Community-driven models mobilizing churches and local nonprofits prove that families in crisis need support before separation.
The answer is rebuilding a culture that refuses to abandon families - a role mothers often lead.
Mothers open their homes to foster children they've chosen to love, not just those they've given birth to. They stay up through the night, helping traumatized kids feel safe enough to sleep. The maternal instinct to sense when a child is in danger of falling into drugs, crime, or worse is one of God's greatest gifts to women, and so often, the only one willing to pick up the pieces of a broken child is their grandmother.
This Mother's Day, those women deserve more than praise. They deserve policies that actually support them.
That means that if a child is not in danger, the priority should be keeping the family together, as well as extending support for kinship care and protecting faith-based foster and adoption ministries instead of subjecting them to unwarranted scrutiny due to their beliefs. We must extend due process rights to parents before removing their children and restore the role of churches, neighborhoods, and local communities as America's first safety net.
Dr. Alveda King has spent years reminding Americans that a true culture of life doesn't end at birth. Her ministry has consistently challenged our country to value every child by supporting mothers, strengthening families, and creating communities where children are protected and loved. She's right.
If we're going to call ourselves a pro-family nation, we must treat the root cause of family separation. When the situation calls for children to enter foster care, we must set them up for success in adulthood.
We do have leadership to thank for putting a spotlight on these issues. First Lady Melania Trump has brought renewed attention to foster youth through her "Fostering the Future" initiative, calling foster care reform a moral imperative and spotlighting education, stability, and long-term opportunity for children aging out of care.
But the government alone won't heal this crisis.
As we restore the American Dream, we should embrace community and the village that raises a child. Churches must step up as resources for struggling families. Neighbors must pivot from indifference to intentional relationships. More families must say yes to fostering, mentoring, adopting, and helping children who need stability.
Every child deserves a home and a family willing to fight for them.
Every mother embarking on that journey deserves a country willing to fight alongside her.
* * *
Stacey Schieffelin, Chair, America First Women's Initiative & Chief External Affairs Officer
This article was co-authored by Angela O'Neill, Senior Strategic Fellow, member of the Advisory Council at America First Women's Initiative and mother of four adopted children.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/remember-the-women-holding-foster-families-together
[Category: ThinkTank]
Jamestown Foundation Posts Commentary: Curtailed Parade Dispels Mirage of Victory in Putin's War
WASHINGTON, May 12 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on May 11, 2026, by Pavel K. Baev, senior researcher at the International Peace Research Institute Oslo, in the foundation's Eurasia Daily Monitor:* * *
Curtailed Parade Dispels Mirage of Victory in Putin's War
Executive Summary:
* Russia's May 9 Victory Day Parade is crucial for justifying Russian President Vladimir Putin's war against Ukraine. This year, however, it was scaled back due to Ukrainian drone strikes, revealing the war's growing strain on Russia.
* Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy leveraged ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 12 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on May 11, 2026, by Pavel K. Baev, senior researcher at the International Peace Research Institute Oslo, in the foundation's Eurasia Daily Monitor: * * * Curtailed Parade Dispels Mirage of Victory in Putin's War Executive Summary: * Russia's May 9 Victory Day Parade is crucial for justifying Russian President Vladimir Putin's war against Ukraine. This year, however, it was scaled back due to Ukrainian drone strikes, revealing the war's growing strain on Russia. * Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy leveragedceasefire negotiations and long-range strike capabilities ahead of the holiday, leaving Moscow dependent on Kyiv and Washington's allowance to safely conduct the parade.
* The war's mounting casualties, declining volunteer recruitment, and rising public support for peace talks are intensifying pressure on Putin, leading to aides reportedly drafting a plan for political management in the case of a pause in combat operations and long-distance strikes.
Russia's Victory Day parade is crucial for justifying Russian President Vladimir Putin's war against Ukraine. The references to the great sacrifices in defeating the aggression of Nazi Germany in 1941-1945 are pivotal for mobilizing public support for the Kremlin's ongoing aggression against Ukraine. The pompous demonstration of military might is necessary for asserting the claim that victory is predestined, a claim which Putin repeated in his traditional address to the parade on May 9 (President of Russia, May 9). The much-reduced format of the ceremony, which lasted just 45 minutes and featured only the marching of a few columns with no military hardware, and the ban on any open-air public celebrations, however, made the victorious discourse ring hollow (Radio Svoboda, May 8). In most major cities in Russia, similar reductions were implemented, and in at least 27 regional capitals, including Kursk, Sevastopol, Rostov-on-Don, and Nizhny Novgorod, celebrations were canceled altogether (Verstka, May 7).
The Russian Defense Ministry mentioned only the "current operational situation" as an explanation for the unprecedented limitations. The meaning of this vague reference is clear--the threat of Ukrainian long-distance strikes (RIA Novosti, April 28). In the first week of May, drone attacks caused huge fires at the oil refineries in Perm and Yaroslavl, and a hit on the air control center in Rostov-on-Don paralyzed air traffic across Southern Russia (Current Time, May 8). Air defenses around Moscow were built up at the expense of other key centers, but a drone still managed to breach them and damage a high-rise building on the prestigious Mosfilmovskaya street (Forbes.ru, May 4). Colonel-General Viktor Afzalov was fired as the commander-in-chief of the Aerospace Forces and Colonel-General Aleksandr Chaiko replaced him. The appointment of a veteran tank commander instead of a professional air defense commander, however, is hardly going to neutralize the threat of Ukrainian attacks (TopWar.ru, May 4).
New long-distance strike capabilities granted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy the initiative in the political contest focused on the Moscow parade, which became a strategic vulnerability for Putin. The intrigue started with Putin's call to U.S. President Donald Trump on April 29 and the confirmation of readiness for a short ceasefire, which Ukrainian commentators derided as a plea for security guarantees (Komsomol'skaya Pravda, April 29; NV.ua, April 30). Zelenskyy suggested a week-long ceasefire, which Russian attacks duly broke (Nezavisimaya gazeta, May 5). Rustem Umerov, the key Ukrainian negotiator, was dispatched to Miami, Florida, to coordinate follow-up moves and Zelenskyy issued a presidential decree granting Russia permission to hold the Red Square parade (RBC, May 6; The Insider, May 8). Moscow responded with a threat to deliver a massive strike on Kyiv, but Trump announced a non-negotiable pause in hostilities for May 9-11 (Novaya Gazeta Europe, May 8). Putin was left staging his parade under the allowance of Kyiv and Washington, and Moscow was beautified not by the usual visual propaganda, but by many machine guns on rooftops (Meduza, May 9).
Zelenskyy scored some quick diplomatic points and exposed Putin's inability to conjure an apparition of victory, alongside stirring the pool of discontent in war-weary Russia (Re: Russia, May 8). Opinion polls show a consistently strong preference for ending the war, and among 18-39-year-olds in Russia, support for peace talks is overwhelming (Levada Center, May 7). The independently compiled list of Russian fatalities now includes 352,000 names, and the campaign for attracting volunteers, particularly into the newly-created Unmanned Systems Forces, yields diminishing results, despite record high premiums for enlisting (see EDM, April 4; Meduza, May 9).
Reacting to these brewing public sentiments, Putin deemed it opportune to state that the Ukrainian conflict was nearing a conclusion (Izvestiya, May 10). Leaks from the presidential administration confirm that a group of aides is busy drafting a plan for political management of a pause in combat operations and long-distance strikes, which needs to be presented to the key elite groups and the broader society in Russia as the best possible outcome of the strategic deadlock (Dossier Center, May 7). Putin may discard this presentation as incompatible with his posture as a determined leader. He cannot position himself as the chief proponent of war, however, as even jingoist commentators are discussing plots for his removal, certainly referring to Western sources (TopWar.ru, May 7).
One typical trait of Putin's leadership is the fear of showing weakness. Complimenting Trump for making the ceasefire offer, he tried to assert a firm stance against the hostile pressure, primarily from Europe (RIAC, May 8). The curtailed parade did not provide the usual demonstration of military might. Kazakhstan's President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev and Uzbekistan's President Shavkat Mirziyoyev, however, attended as guests of honor, likely as part of an effort to prove that Russia still has influence in Central Asia (see EDM, April 13; Kommersant, May 9). Another attempt to demonstrate Russia's international credibility, likely aimed at strengthening Putin's hand during his forthcoming visit to the People's Republic of China, was the inclusion of a North Korean battalion, which proudly marched through Red Square (RBC, May 9). The arrival of some 15,000 North Korean troops was crucial for pushing back the Ukrainian incursion into Russia's Kursk oblast in autumn 2024, which is supposed to be marked by a special monument. That victory, however, is of little relevance to the present-day stalemate resulting in a steady degradation of the Russian army under relentless Ukrainian middle-range strikes (TASS, March 24; The Insider, May 8).
No amount of patriotic propaganda can hide the depletion of Russia's power resources exposed by the pitiful parade, and Putin is acutely aware of the humiliation Zelenskyy's gibe has aggravated. He may not understand how false his assertions of a steady march to victory sound, or how pathetic his obsession with his own safety appears. He can hardly ignore the signs of exhaustion from the war course, however, so the next parade can only be even worse. Options for breaking the deadlock through escalation involve significant risks that he is not prepared to take at this late-autumnal phase of life, which remains so precious to him. Making a peace deal is by no means risk-free, but every delay drives him deeper into the position of weakness where riskier concessions become necessary.
* * *
Dr. Pavel K. Baev is a senior researcher at the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO).
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/curtailed-parade-dispels-mirage-of-victory-in-putins-war/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Hudson Institute Issues Commentary to Times of Central Asia: U.S. Still Doesn't Know Where Central Asia Belongs
WASHINGTON, May 12 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on May 11, 2026, by senior fellow Ken Moriyasu to the Times of Central Asia:* * *
The US Still Doesn't Know Where Central Asia Belongs
Washington cannot decide where Central Asia belongs. Is it part of Europe? Asia? The Middle East? The confusion is on full display in how the House of Representatives has reassigned the region across subcommittees in rapid succession.
In the 116th Congress, which convened in 2019, Central ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 12 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on May 11, 2026, by senior fellow Ken Moriyasu to the Times of Central Asia: * * * The US Still Doesn't Know Where Central Asia Belongs Washington cannot decide where Central Asia belongs. Is it part of Europe? Asia? The Middle East? The confusion is on full display in how the House of Representatives has reassigned the region across subcommittees in rapid succession. In the 116th Congress, which convened in 2019, CentralAsia fell under the Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, Energy and the Environment. Two years later, in the 117th Congress, it was moved to the Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, Central Asia and Nonproliferation. That arrangement barely settled before the 118th Congress shifted it again--this time to the Subcommittee on the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia. Now, in the 119th Congress, it has been relocated to the Subcommittee on South and Central Asia.
On the banks of the Potomac, Central Asia has taken on a nomadic life of its own--constantly on the move, never quite settling in one place.
At the State Department, Central Asia is grouped under the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs alongside Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. At the Pentagon, by contrast, the Middle East team oversees relations with Central Asia, alongside countries like Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan.
These mismatches are not just clumsy; they are strategically dangerous. By misplacing Central Asia, Washington is misreading the geography of China's rise.
It is time for Washington to stop the bureaucratic musical chairs and place Central Asia within a coherent grand strategy. Far from being an afterthought, the region is one of the most consequential pieces of the geopolitical puzzle facing the United States: how to respond to China's strategy.
This is because Central Asia sits at the heart of China's decades-long effort to move its critical lifelines away from the Indo-Pacific and onto the Eurasian landmass.
Over the past 15 years, China has quietly reoriented its energy routes, reducing reliance on maritime pathways vulnerable to U.S. naval dominance--particularly chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Malacca--and expanded overland imports across Eurasia.
Today, China imports significant volumes of natural gas via pipelines from Turkmenistan and Russia, as well as crude oil from Kazakhstan. These continental routes are largely insulated from maritime interdiction, giving Beijing strategic resilience.
Central Asia should be understood through this lens. For China, the region is not peripheral--it is essential. The pipelines, railways and trade corridors that underpin China's resilience all pass through Xinjiang and Central Asia. In this sense, Central Asia is not merely adjacent to China; it is embedded in China's vision of the future.
This is why Washington's practice of grouping Central Asia with South Asia misses the mark. The two regions operate under fundamentally different strategic logics. South Asia is centered on the Indian subcontinent, shaped by maritime dynamics and the India Pakistan rivalry. Central Asia, by contrast, is a continental crossroads--defined by overland connectivity, energy flows and great power competition across Eurasia.
India, meanwhile, is geographically constrained--lacking direct land access to Central Asia due to territory administered by Pakistan and separated from China by the Himalayas--leaving it peripheral to Beijing's continental strategy.
Treating these regions as a single unit blurs critical distinctions and complicates the formulation of a strategy for one of the most important arenas of geopolitical competition.
If Washington is searching for a more coherent framework, it should consider a broader conceptual map--what might be called a "Greater Asia." This would span the Eurasian landmass from Turkey to Japan, echoing the logic of the ancient Silk Road. Within this framework, Central Asia is not marginal--it is pivotal.
In the same context, the U.S. government should also rethink how it organizes expertise on China itself. Much of Washington's China-focused policymaking remains concentrated among East Asia specialists. A deeper understanding of China's westward push - often described as "marching West" - and the strategic logic of the Belt and Road Initiative would lead to more accurate prescriptions. This would do more than tidy up bureaucratic inconsistencies; it would align U.S. policymaking with geopolitical realities.
China already treats Central Asia as crucial to its westward strategy. Russia, despite its diminished influence, still views the region as part of its near abroad. If the United States persists with fragmented and outdated regional definitions, it risks becoming the great power without a coherent strategic approach.
Reorganizing government bureaus may seem like a technical fix, but it is also a signal of priority. A framework that places Central Asia within a broader Eurasian and China-focused strategy would demonstrate that Washington understands the region not as an appendage of somewhere else, but as a central piece of the strategic landscape.
More than a century ago, British geographer Halford Mackinder warned that control of the Eurasian "Heartland" would shape global power. Central Asia lies at the core of that insight. China understands this geography instinctively and is acting on it. It is time for Washington to do so, too.
Read in The Times of Central Asia (https://timesca.com/opinion-the-u-s-still-doesnt-know-where-central-asia-belongs/).
* * *
At A Glance:
Ken Moriyasu is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/us-still-doesnt-know-where-central-asia-belongs-ken-moriyasu
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: Happy Statehood Day, Minnesota!
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, May 12 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on May 11, 2026, by economist John Phelan:* * *
Happy Statehood Day, Minnesota!
Today is Minnesota Statehood Day, celebrating our state's admittance to the union as the 32nd state 168 years ago. Over the last few years, I've written a number of articles about Minnesota's history for our magazine, Thinking Minnesota, and have listed and linked them below in honor of the occasion.
* Abolitionism in Minnesota: ... Show Full Article MINNETONKA, Minnesota, May 12 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on May 11, 2026, by economist John Phelan: * * * Happy Statehood Day, Minnesota! Today is Minnesota Statehood Day, celebrating our state's admittance to the union as the 32nd state 168 years ago. Over the last few years, I've written a number of articles about Minnesota's history for our magazine, Thinking Minnesota, and have listed and linked them below in honor of the occasion. * Abolitionism in Minnesota:Summer 2020
* Minnesota's Civil War: The Dakota War of 1862: Spring 2022
* The 1st Minnesota Volunteer Infantry Regiment at Gettysburg: Spring 2023
* The road to Nashville: Minnesota in the western war: Fall 2024
* Flyover Land: Lewis and Fitzgerald at 100: Fall 2020
* The lesson of prohibition: Fall 2019
* More Ted, Less Taxes: Lessons from Theodore Christianson (by John Hendrickson): Spring 2023
* Minnesotans fight the Rising Sun: Minnesotans in the Pacific War: Fall 2025
* The good guys in a just war: Winter 2026
* Charles Stenvig: The making of a mayor: Fall 2022
* The tragedy of Hubert Humphrey: Winter 2020
* How the range was lost: The DFL's left and right go to war: Summer 2025
* From miracle to massacre: How Minnesota returned to a two-party state: Winter 2024
* At the crossroads: The rise, fall, and rise of Walter Mondale: Summer 2021
* Beer boom: How deregulation and tax cuts allow enable craft brewers to thrive: Winter 2019
Happy birthday, Minnesota!
* * *
John Phelan is an Economist at the Center of the American Experiment.
john.phelan@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/happy-statehood-day-minnesota-2/
[Category: ThinkTank]