Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Ifo Institute: Pension Splitting Makes Married Couples Worse Off
MUNICH, Germany, Sept. 12 (TNSxrep) -- ifo Institute issued the following news release:
* * *
Pension Splitting Makes Married Couples Worse Off
Mandatory pension splitting as a replacement for the widow's pension would leave most married couples in Germany worse off financially. This is the conclusion reached by a new study by the ifo Institute. In June 2026, the German Pension Commission had called for a review of survivor benefits. The ifo study takes up that call and calculates pension splitting as one possible design option. "Even if one spouse benefits from pension splitting, the couple ... Show Full Article MUNICH, Germany, Sept. 12 (TNSxrep) -- ifo Institute issued the following news release: * * * Pension Splitting Makes Married Couples Worse Off Mandatory pension splitting as a replacement for the widow's pension would leave most married couples in Germany worse off financially. This is the conclusion reached by a new study by the ifo Institute. In June 2026, the German Pension Commission had called for a review of survivor benefits. The ifo study takes up that call and calculates pension splitting as one possible design option. "Even if one spouse benefits from pension splitting, the coupleas a whole would lose out in almost all cases," says Marcel Thum, Director of ifo Dresden. "The statutory pension insurance system would benefit, as its expenditures would decrease significantly if the widow's pension were replaced by pension splitting."
The study examines various marital constellations, such as age at marriage, income disparities, and the age gap between spouses. Based on typical retirement biographies, it transpires that when couples split their pensions, they lose a six-figure EUR amount over the course of their lives. Conversely, the statutory pension insurance system gains. Only in specific cases when a couple married at a young age and the surviving spouse earns significantly less and has accumulated only a small pension of their own would pension splitting be more advantageous. Depending on the marital constellation, the calculated effects range from a gain of about EUR 153,000 to a loss of about EUR 152,000 over an entire lifetime.
Under pension splitting, spouses each receive half of the pension entitlements that accrue during the marriage. The widow's or widower's pension, under which up to 55 percent of the deceased's pension goes to the surviving spouse, ceases to be paid. Pension entitlements accrued before marriage remain unaffected.
The study tracks typical married couples throughout the course of their life varying the start of the marriage, the age difference, and the income gap between the spouses. The authors calculate the present value of all future pension payments in each case for the current legislation with a widow's pension, and for the alternative system where pension splitting is mandatory. This figure includes all expected pension payments starting at retirement, discounted at an annual interest rate of 2 percent.
The calculations assume that couples' behavior will not change if they switch to pension splitting. However, the study's authors discuss possible behavioral responses resulting from changes in work incentives. They point out that these possible behavioral responses cannot be precisely predicted. However, policymakers should take them into account in any reform discussion.
* * *
Publication
2026 Article in Journal
Rentensplitting statt Witwenrente: Wer gewinnt, wer verliert?
Joachim Ragnitz, Marcel Thum
ifo Schnelldienst, 2026, 79, Nr. 9 04-09
Learn more (https://www.ifo.de/en/publications/2026/article-journal/rentensplitting-statt-witwenrente-wer-gewinnt-wer-verliert)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2026-09-11/pension-splitting-makes-married-couples-worse
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Pension Splitting Makes Married Couples Worse Off
Mandatory pension splitting as a replacement for the widow's pension would leave most married couples in Germany worse off financially. This is the conclusion reached by a new study by the ifo Institute. In June 2026, the German Pension Commission had called for a review of survivor benefits. The ifo study takes up that call and calculates pension splitting as one possible design option. "Even if one spouse benefits from pension splitting, the couple ... Show Full Article MUNICH, Germany, Sept. 12 (TNSxrep) -- ifo Institute issued the following news release: * * * Pension Splitting Makes Married Couples Worse Off Mandatory pension splitting as a replacement for the widow's pension would leave most married couples in Germany worse off financially. This is the conclusion reached by a new study by the ifo Institute. In June 2026, the German Pension Commission had called for a review of survivor benefits. The ifo study takes up that call and calculates pension splitting as one possible design option. "Even if one spouse benefits from pension splitting, the coupleas a whole would lose out in almost all cases," says Marcel Thum, Director of ifo Dresden. "The statutory pension insurance system would benefit, as its expenditures would decrease significantly if the widow's pension were replaced by pension splitting."
The study examines various marital constellations, such as age at marriage, income disparities, and the age gap between spouses. Based on typical retirement biographies, it transpires that when couples split their pensions, they lose a six-figure EUR amount over the course of their lives. Conversely, the statutory pension insurance system gains. Only in specific cases when a couple married at a young age and the surviving spouse earns significantly less and has accumulated only a small pension of their own would pension splitting be more advantageous. Depending on the marital constellation, the calculated effects range from a gain of about EUR 153,000 to a loss of about EUR 152,000 over an entire lifetime.
Under pension splitting, spouses each receive half of the pension entitlements that accrue during the marriage. The widow's or widower's pension, under which up to 55 percent of the deceased's pension goes to the surviving spouse, ceases to be paid. Pension entitlements accrued before marriage remain unaffected.
The study tracks typical married couples throughout the course of their life varying the start of the marriage, the age difference, and the income gap between the spouses. The authors calculate the present value of all future pension payments in each case for the current legislation with a widow's pension, and for the alternative system where pension splitting is mandatory. This figure includes all expected pension payments starting at retirement, discounted at an annual interest rate of 2 percent.
The calculations assume that couples' behavior will not change if they switch to pension splitting. However, the study's authors discuss possible behavioral responses resulting from changes in work incentives. They point out that these possible behavioral responses cannot be precisely predicted. However, policymakers should take them into account in any reform discussion.
* * *
Publication
2026 Article in Journal
Rentensplitting statt Witwenrente: Wer gewinnt, wer verliert?
Joachim Ragnitz, Marcel Thum
ifo Schnelldienst, 2026, 79, Nr. 9 04-09
Learn more (https://www.ifo.de/en/publications/2026/article-journal/rentensplitting-statt-witwenrente-wer-gewinnt-wer-verliert)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2026-09-11/pension-splitting-makes-married-couples-worse
[Category: ThinkTank]
Hudson Institute Issues Commentary: Twenty-Five Years After 9/11 - A Morning I Shall Never Forget
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Sept. 11, 2026, by Ludovic Hood, senior fellow at the Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East:
* * *
Twenty-Five Years after 9/11: A Morning I Shall Never Forget
At 8:46 a.m. on September 11, 2001, I was standing on the platform at Canal Street in lower Manhattan, awaiting the downtown express train. A loud boom sounded through the tunnels, causing other straphangers to look up quizzically before returning to ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Sept. 11, 2026, by Ludovic Hood, senior fellow at the Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East: * * * Twenty-Five Years after 9/11: A Morning I Shall Never Forget At 8:46 a.m. on September 11, 2001, I was standing on the platform at Canal Street in lower Manhattan, awaiting the downtown express train. A loud boom sounded through the tunnels, causing other straphangers to look up quizzically before returning totheir newspapers. I later realized the noise was American Airlines Flight 11 crashing into the North Tower.
At about 8:55 a.m., I walked up and out of the Wall Street subway station. High above me, papers fluttered in the clear sky. I initially thought it was a publicity stunt associated with an initial public offering at the New York Stock Exchange.
At 9:03 a.m., I stepped out of my usual bagel shop and looked west. At that moment, I heard a loud roar and then saw a flash of orange on an airplane, United Airlines Flight 175, right before it crashed into the upper floors of the South Tower. Seconds later, scores of people came running toward me, and I stepped back into the shop.
By 9:15 a.m., I was standing about a block away from the World Trade Center, looking up at the two towers. The impact sites were so high up that it was hard to comprehend the size of the fires. People around me speculated that radar issues caused two Cessnas to fly into the towers. More grimly, others talked about people jumping out of the North Tower.
By about 9:30 a.m., I grew concerned that I couldn't reach my brother on his cell phone. He typically used the World Trade Center subway stop to commute to his office nearby. Nearly all cell networks were overloaded.
At about 9:42 a.m., people around me said the Pentagon had been hit and that other New York City sites might be under attack. I started to walk to my office on Exchange Place.
By 9:58 a.m., I was in my 34th-floor office at 20 Exchange Place. My brother, with whom I had finally spoken, came out of the elevator and joined me in the common area.
At 9:59 a.m., a colleague yelled, "The tower's collapsing!" We ran to the window. Thirty stories beneath us, a massive cloud of dust rushed toward the foot of the building and then raced up toward us. Within seconds, it reached our floor, and the blue sky disappeared.
At about 10:20 a.m., we walked out of the building into the gently swirling dust. Someone in the lobby had ripped up a shirt, and we covered our faces with the strips of cloth. My brother and I started to walk toward the South Street Seaport.
At 10:28 a.m., we heard a distant roar and, after a minute, the dust around us became more intense. The North Tower had collapsed.
My brother and I then spent the next hour or so walking up the side of the FDR Drive. We were too spooked to head back into the heart of downtown, given reports of additional attacks. I recall bumming cigarettes from strangers along the way--our hands were shaking.
My main recollection from that day and the days that followed is a sense of both sadness and togetherness. I had lived in Manhattan for much of the prior decade--I loved the city. The murder of 3,000 people was unfathomable. At the same time, New York City residents and commuters had a common bond--you felt the solidarity everywhere in those early weeks.
The nihilistic ideology that led to the September 11 attacks persists. It has killed thousands of people in suicide bombings, terrorist attacks, and wars in countries across Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. America exhausted itself trying to fight it. Some Middle Eastern governments understand the dire threat this ideology poses, but it feels like many Western politicians do not or will not, out of fear of being offensive. I look at the foreign policy priorities of New York City's mayor and the United Kingdom's new prime minister, for example, and I can only shake my head in disbelief.
* * *
Ludovic Hood is a senior fellow with Hudson Institute's Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East. His research focuses on US Middle East policy, Gulf regional security, Israel, the Arab states, Iran, and Lebanon.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/national-security-defense/twenty-five-years-after-911-morning-i-shall-never-forget-ludovic-hood
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Twenty-Five Years after 9/11: A Morning I Shall Never Forget
At 8:46 a.m. on September 11, 2001, I was standing on the platform at Canal Street in lower Manhattan, awaiting the downtown express train. A loud boom sounded through the tunnels, causing other straphangers to look up quizzically before returning to ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Sept. 11, 2026, by Ludovic Hood, senior fellow at the Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East: * * * Twenty-Five Years after 9/11: A Morning I Shall Never Forget At 8:46 a.m. on September 11, 2001, I was standing on the platform at Canal Street in lower Manhattan, awaiting the downtown express train. A loud boom sounded through the tunnels, causing other straphangers to look up quizzically before returning totheir newspapers. I later realized the noise was American Airlines Flight 11 crashing into the North Tower.
At about 8:55 a.m., I walked up and out of the Wall Street subway station. High above me, papers fluttered in the clear sky. I initially thought it was a publicity stunt associated with an initial public offering at the New York Stock Exchange.
At 9:03 a.m., I stepped out of my usual bagel shop and looked west. At that moment, I heard a loud roar and then saw a flash of orange on an airplane, United Airlines Flight 175, right before it crashed into the upper floors of the South Tower. Seconds later, scores of people came running toward me, and I stepped back into the shop.
By 9:15 a.m., I was standing about a block away from the World Trade Center, looking up at the two towers. The impact sites were so high up that it was hard to comprehend the size of the fires. People around me speculated that radar issues caused two Cessnas to fly into the towers. More grimly, others talked about people jumping out of the North Tower.
By about 9:30 a.m., I grew concerned that I couldn't reach my brother on his cell phone. He typically used the World Trade Center subway stop to commute to his office nearby. Nearly all cell networks were overloaded.
At about 9:42 a.m., people around me said the Pentagon had been hit and that other New York City sites might be under attack. I started to walk to my office on Exchange Place.
By 9:58 a.m., I was in my 34th-floor office at 20 Exchange Place. My brother, with whom I had finally spoken, came out of the elevator and joined me in the common area.
At 9:59 a.m., a colleague yelled, "The tower's collapsing!" We ran to the window. Thirty stories beneath us, a massive cloud of dust rushed toward the foot of the building and then raced up toward us. Within seconds, it reached our floor, and the blue sky disappeared.
At about 10:20 a.m., we walked out of the building into the gently swirling dust. Someone in the lobby had ripped up a shirt, and we covered our faces with the strips of cloth. My brother and I started to walk toward the South Street Seaport.
At 10:28 a.m., we heard a distant roar and, after a minute, the dust around us became more intense. The North Tower had collapsed.
My brother and I then spent the next hour or so walking up the side of the FDR Drive. We were too spooked to head back into the heart of downtown, given reports of additional attacks. I recall bumming cigarettes from strangers along the way--our hands were shaking.
My main recollection from that day and the days that followed is a sense of both sadness and togetherness. I had lived in Manhattan for much of the prior decade--I loved the city. The murder of 3,000 people was unfathomable. At the same time, New York City residents and commuters had a common bond--you felt the solidarity everywhere in those early weeks.
The nihilistic ideology that led to the September 11 attacks persists. It has killed thousands of people in suicide bombings, terrorist attacks, and wars in countries across Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. America exhausted itself trying to fight it. Some Middle Eastern governments understand the dire threat this ideology poses, but it feels like many Western politicians do not or will not, out of fear of being offensive. I look at the foreign policy priorities of New York City's mayor and the United Kingdom's new prime minister, for example, and I can only shake my head in disbelief.
* * *
Ludovic Hood is a senior fellow with Hudson Institute's Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East. His research focuses on US Middle East policy, Gulf regional security, Israel, the Arab states, Iran, and Lebanon.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/national-security-defense/twenty-five-years-after-911-morning-i-shall-never-forget-ludovic-hood
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center on Budget & Policy Priorities: States Continue to Streamline and Modernize WIC
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 -- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued the following report:
* * *
States Continue to Streamline and Modernize WIC
Most States Have Adopted Flexibilities and Digital Tools to Simplify Participation for Families
By Zoe Neuberger and Luis Nunez
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) provides healthy foods, nutrition education, breastfeeding support, and referrals to health care and social services to pregnant and postpartum people with low incomes, infants, and children under age 5. Despite the well-documented nutritional ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 -- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued the following report: * * * States Continue to Streamline and Modernize WIC Most States Have Adopted Flexibilities and Digital Tools to Simplify Participation for Families By Zoe Neuberger and Luis Nunez The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) provides healthy foods, nutrition education, breastfeeding support, and referrals to health care and social services to pregnant and postpartum people with low incomes, infants, and children under age 5. Despite the well-documented nutritionaland health benefits associated with WIC participation,[1] in recent years almost half of eligible people (43.9 percent in 2023) have not been enrolled, especially pregnant individuals and children ages 1 through 4.[2]
To reach more eligible families with low incomes, state and local WIC agencies have adjusted their policies and practices to remove barriers to enrollment. These efforts were accelerated under COVID-19-related waivers of certain program rules and continued with waivers authorized under the modernization initiative in the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA).[3] In 2023, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which administers WIC, issued a policy memorandum to clarify available flexibilities for streamlining WIC certification and to encourage WIC state agencies to adopt them; state agencies have responded by implementing additional policy flexibilities.[4]
This report compiles selected state WIC certification policies that CBPP collected from WIC state agencies during 2021 and 2022, with updates and responses to additional questions provided by states in the fall and winter of 2023-2024 and most recently in the winter of 2025-2026. (This report focuses on policy flexibilities that do not require waivers.) CBPP also collected information from state agencies about digital technology tools available to WIC applicants and participants, such as online forms, apps, and portals, for the first time in 2025-2026.[5]
Understanding which policies states have implemented can help federal policymakers update program rules -- legislatively when WIC is reauthorized, or administratively -- and help program administrators in other states implement policies that simplify WIC enrollment and recertification procedures. Understanding which digital tools states are using can help WIC state agencies connect with other states that have implemented technology they want to adopt or features they want to add to existing tools. By adopting these policies and tools, WIC state agencies can make it easier for eligible families to get and stay enrolled and reduce the administrative burden on local staff.
Our compilation of state WIC certification policies shows that:
* Thirty WIC state agencies allow pregnant applicants who meet WIC's income standards to be enrolled immediately, in advance of the nutrition assessment. This enables them to begin receiving food benefits as soon as they are determined to be income-eligible.
* Forty WIC state agencies have eliminated the requirement that households without any income provide a third-party statement verifying their income. Such a requirement can prevent or delay vulnerable families from obtaining nutrition assistance during critical periods of prenatal, infant, and child development.
* Thirty-five WIC state agencies exempt infants and children of working parents from being physically present for certification appointments. While many states currently have a waiver permitting certification by telephone or video conference for all applicants, those that adopt the flexibility to exempt infants and children of working parents can reduce the burden of certification appointments when waivers end.
In addition to widespread adoption of those long-standing policies, nearly all state agencies have implemented one or more policies that USDA's 2023 policy memo on streamlining certification highlighted as available flexibilities to reduce barriers to participation:
* Thirty-eight WIC state agencies allow income and/or residence eligibility to be determined in advance of certification appointments; one additional state is in the process of implementing this policy. Checking income and residence eligibility in advance reduces both the duration of the certification appointment and the number of documents that applicants must provide.
* Forty-eight WIC state agencies explicitly permit applicants to provide electronic documentation, either in person or transmitted by secure electronic methods. The number and types of methods available for sharing documents vary widely, however.
* Forty-four WIC state agencies facilitate prompt enrollment of newborns by using the mother's (or another household member's) participation in Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and/or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) as the basis for eligibility; two additional states are implementing this policy. However, 12 of the states that have implemented this policy do not include participation in SNAP, as permitted by USDA.
* Forty-eight WIC state agencies accept documentation of an applicant's enrollment in Medicaid, SNAP, or TANF to document their residence and/or identity as well as their income; one additional state is implementing this policy.
* Forty-two WIC state agencies allow temporary 30-day certifications to give applicants more time to provide eligibility documents without delaying food benefits.
By adopting more of these flexibilities, WIC state agencies can build on the increase in WIC coverage between 2021, when 51.2 percent of eligible people participated, and 2023, when the share rose to 56.1 percent. All of the policies described in this report are allowed under regular program rules, will remain available to states after the ARPA-related waivers expire, and can be adopted by states by amending their state plan, revising their policy manual, or both.
State agencies have also deployed a range of digital tools to make information more accessible to participants and to help families apply for WIC benefits and services:
* Thirty-six WIC state agencies offer a digital tool to assist families with starting the process of applying for WIC. The types of information collected from applicants vary, with nearly all states collecting contact information and most also gathering some of the information needed for an eligibility determination. Nineteen of the states collect information used to schedule appointments.
* Participants in 49 states can view their food benefits through a digital tool. In 44 states, participants can access information to assist them with shopping for WIC foods.
* Participants in 20 states can view family information, such as enrolled family members, address, and phone numbers, and two additional states are adding this information to a digital tool. In 13 of these states, participants may change certain family information, and one more is adding this functionality.
* Participants in 30 states can use a digital tool to request an automated appointment reminder. In 28 states, participants can view their upcoming appointments, with two more states adding this feature. Participants in 15 states can request and/or change appointments; two more states are adding this functionality.
More widespread use of all available policy flexibilities and expanded use of digital tools would allow eligible individuals to receive benefits more easily and promptly, and help them participate for as long as they are eligible. This would increase WIC enrollment and improve health outcomes while also reducing administrative tasks for staff, freeing up time to provide nutrition and breastfeeding services.
* * *
Assessing Your WIC Certification Practices
A CBPP toolkit to help WIC agencies modernize and streamline the certification process is available at www.cbpp.org/wiccertificationtoolkit. It includes descriptions of practices for facilitating WIC enrollment and simplifying eligibility determinations, along with examples from WIC state and local agencies and additional resources.
* * *
Many States Have Updated Their Certification Policies and Practices and Adopted or Enhanced Digital Tools
WIC agencies assess eligibility for benefits when applicants first apply and periodically thereafter. The program serves certain categories of applicants: infants and children under age 5, pregnant individuals, and, for up to one year, postpartum individuals. Additional eligibility criteria include income, residence, and nutritional risk. Applicants are also required to provide identification. Under federal law, WIC state agencies may establish certification periods of one year rather than six months for breastfeeding parents, infants, and children ages 1 through 4.[6] All states and the District of Columbia have adopted full-year certification for all of these categories.
While WIC programs operate under certain federal eligibility rules and policies, state and local WIC agencies have considerable flexibility to determine how they certify new applicants and recertify participants. WIC state agencies set policies and procedures for certifying eligibility, and local agencies or clinics implement these within the context of their staffing patterns and facilities. As a result, WIC agencies employ a wide range of certification options and a variety of processes. Many state and local WIC agencies have changed their certification processes since CBPP issued its initial report on this issue in 2017.[7] Among other factors, the COVID-19 pandemic required agencies to adopt new ways of certifying and serving participants. Increased use of technology and experience with virtual appointments have increased flexibility and simplified certification processes while inspiring creative ways of gathering information.
As a result, many promising practices have emerged. Practices such as online applications and electronic referrals from health care providers simplify WIC enrollment, which helps both participants and staff. Increased coordination with health care providers reduces the need for families to provide duplicative information and for WIC staff to collect measurements and bloodwork, thereby streamlining the certification process and enhancing continuity of care.
To document some of the changes, CBPP has periodically asked the 50 geographic WIC state agencies to update the information about certification policies and practices published in the 2017 report and to respond to questions about additional items.The District of Columbia was also asked to provide the information starting in 2022. While U.S. Territories and tribal organizations are also considered state agencies operating the WIC program, their policies are not included in this report. The geographic state agencies serve the vast majority of WIC participants (99 percent in fiscal year 2025).
Nearly all states responded to CBPP's requests for updates in 2021 and 2022 (47 of 50 in 2021 and 48 of 51 in 2022); most (42 of 51) also provided updates in 2023-2024. All but three state agencies responded to the most recent request for updates during the winter of 2025-2026. These states also provided new information about digital tools, such as online forms for requesting WIC benefits, apps, and participant portals, that CBPP had not collected in the past. This report summarizes the information they provided in four areas: adopting adjunctive eligibility, broadening options for applicants to document eligibility, adopting other policies to streamline certification, and offering digital tools for applicants and participants. Each section includes a table listing policies and practices across the state agencies. The range of certification processes and digital tools shown in the tables can help federal stakeholders understand their use and help state program administrators connect with peers to learn about different approaches.
Adjunctive Eligibility Simplifies Enrollment
To help ensure that low-income families with young children receive the benefits and supports for which they qualify and to avoid duplicative administrative work, policymakers have streamlined enrollment across benefit programs through a policy known as adjunctive eligibility. Under federal law, applicants who are enrolled in Medicaid or SNAP or receive monthly TANF cash assistance are automatically considered income-eligible, or adjunctively eligible, for WIC.[8] This long-standing policy simplifies WIC eligibility determinations for more than 3 in 4 applicants.[9] Nonetheless, USDA estimates that nationwide, nearly half of WIC-eligible people receiving Medicaid or SNAP (or both) did not access WIC in 2023.[10] Targeted outreach to these groups and robust referrals from health care providers are important ways of increasing WIC take-up.[11]
During the certification process, WIC agencies are required to attempt to determine if the applicant is adjunctively income-eligible before performing a traditional income determination. State agencies must include procedures in their annual state plan for obtaining adjunctive eligibility information prior to the certification appointment.[12] While nearly all states accept an applicant's paper documentation of Medicaid, SNAP, or TANF participation, such as an eligibility determination letter, they also use a variety of other options to check for participation. All WIC agencies have access to online portals, data, or automated phone systems set up by at least one of the other programs; 16 agencies have integrated a process to check for adjunctive eligibility into their WIC information system and three more are developing an integrated process. (See Table 1.)
USDA's 2023 policy memo on streamlining certification notes that infants are considered income-eligible for WIC if their parents are enrolled in Medicaid or their families receive SNAP or TANF; no documentation that the infant receives those benefits is necessary. USDA encouraged state agencies to implement this policy to facilitate timely WIC enrollment of newborns; 44 states have already done so and two others are implementing it. Most (41) of these states certify income-eligibility for infants of participants enrolled in Medicaid. (See Table 3.) Fewer states (32) report permitting it for infants born into families enrolled in SNAP; by adopting this change, states can facilitate timely enrollment of infants in families participating in SNAP or TANF but not Medicaid.
Nearly all WIC state agencies accept documentation of enrollment in Medicaid, SNAP, or TANF to meet both income and residence requirements if that program checks residence within the state as part of its eligibility process. Enrollment in these programs is also used to document identification in most states, which maximizes the benefit of checking for adjunctive eligibility. USDA encourages state agencies to permit one source to document multiple eligibility factors to make the process easier for both participants and staff.
Table 1 shows how state agencies direct local staff to check for adjunctive eligibility. It also lists which states use adjunctive eligibility documentation to document residence and/or identity in addition to income.
* * *
TABLE 1: WIC Certification Policies and Practices: Methods for Checking Adjunctive Eligibility
* * *
States Have Broadened Options for Applicants to Document Eligibility
Federal rules allow WIC staff to accept documents that are shown in electronic form during in-person appointments or transmitted electronically, and USDA's policy memo on streamlining certification requires WIC state agencies to develop policies for the secure use of online and/or electronic resources. Nearly all states include a policy on the use of electronic documents for certification in their policy manuals. But the options available to applicants for sharing electronic documents vary.
Prior to the pandemic, it was uncommon for WIC agencies to offer a mechanism to transmit documents electronically. But all states established such mechanisms as they transitioned to conducting certification appointments by telephone or video to protect participants and WIC staff after the onset of COVID-19. Now state policies allow for a range of methods for participants to rely on electronic documents before, during, or after certification appointments.
Applicants (whether applying for the first time or being recertified) can show documents on their telephones during in-person or video appointments, or they can send a photo or screenshot of a document via text message, email, or fax. Also, a growing number of states are setting up secure methods for participants to upload documents, with 22 states reporting that they offer this option in 2025-2026. In some states, document uploading capability is part of an online application or is a feature within their WIC portals or mobile apps, while others offer standalone tools for uploading documents.
In a 2025 survey of more than 56,000 WIC participants conducted in 25 geographic state agencies and two agencies in Indian Tribal Organizations, an average 61 percent of participants reported using a method other than in-person to provide documents for certification. The methods most frequently used included a website, portal, WIC app, or online application (43 percent of all respondents); text messaging (39 percent); and email (36 percent). More than 9 in 10 of those who shared their personal information with WIC using any of those virtual methods found it somewhat or very easy to do so.[13] In a 2023 survey of WIC participants, respondents rated their comfort with using virtual methods for sharing personal information with WIC at an average of 3.5 out of 4 across all virtual methods.[14] While these findings are encouraging, it is also important for state and local agencies to adopt measures to protect the confidentiality of the information provided without sacrificing ease of use.
USDA's policy memo on streamlining certification encouraged WIC state agencies to "utilize tools at their disposal to collect information and documents in advance of certification appointments to identify any missing items and streamline the certification process." It also encouraged state agencies that can access applicable sources to assess whether a participant nearing the end of their certification period remains adjunctively income-eligible in advance of their recertification appointment.
Thirty-eight WIC state agencies permit local staff to determine income and/or residence eligibility in advance of the certification appointment (with advance times ranging from the same day to 30 days), and one additional state is implementing this policy. (See Figure 1.) Thirty-nine WIC state agencies allow adjunctive eligibility to be checked before a recertification appointment; most of them permit staff to use available methods (such as an automated phone system or online portal) and permit participants to submit documents by email or other methods.
By maximizing the use of electronic documents and adjunctive eligibility, especially in advance of certification appointments, additional states could reduce the duration of certification appointments, the number of documents that applicants must provide, and the number of applicants with incomplete documentation.
* * *
FIGURE 1: 38 WIC State Agencies Simplify Certification Appointments by Allowing Advance Determinations of Income and/or Residence Eligibility
* * *
When applicants do not have all the required documentation, most state agencies permit a temporary 30-day certification to give them more time to provide eligibility documents without delaying food benefits. USDA's policy memo on streamlining certification strongly encourages state agencies to use existing flexibilities to minimize barriers to benefits, including by granting a temporary 30-day certification period if an applicant can provide two of the three documents required to determine eligibility (identity, residency, and income). If a temporary certification period is initiated, the applicant must provide appropriate documentation within 30 days to continue receiving benefits. Flexible, electronic options for submitting the information without having to return to the clinic are important to help participants with temporary certifications become fully certified.
Some state and local agencies monitor the number of temporary certifications as well as the number of these that become full certifications. If many participants are certified for only 30 days, this may indicate a need for staff training on maximizing the use of electronic documents. For example, by training staff to view and receive documents electronically, Maricopa County, Arizona, lowered the share of certifications that were temporary because clients had not provided all required documents from 26 percent to 2 percent.[15] In addition, a high rate of temporary certifications that do not become full certifications may warrant more follow-up assistance to ensure that eligible and interested families are able to submit the documentation necessary to continue receiving benefits.[16]
Table 2 compiles state policies on using electronic documents, checking eligibility prior to certification appointments, and granting temporary certifications.
* * *
TABLE 2: WIC Certification Policies and Practices: Using Electronic Eligibility Documentation, Checking Eligibility Prior to Certification Appointments, and Granting Temporary Certifications
* * *
States Can Adopt Other Policies to Streamline Certification
Described below are several other ways in which WIC state agencies can adjust their policies, and local agencies can adjust their practices, to make the certification process easier to navigate and less burdensome for both participants and staff.
Exempting Some Individuals From In-Person Appointments
Federal law permits WIC state agencies to exempt certain individuals from the requirement that applicants be physically present at certification appointments. They include infants or children receiving ongoing health care (after the initial certification), infants or children with working parents (after the initial certification and with a limit on how much time can elapse between in-person appointments), and newborn infants under 8 weeks old. For adults, exemptions from the physical presence requirement are limited to individuals with disabilities.[17]
Under short-term waivers approved by the USDA during the pandemic, state agencies made virtual appointments available to all WIC applicants and participants to protect the health of families and WIC staff. Participants were offered telephone and video certification appointments and options for providing eligibility information without visiting a WIC office. New waivers granted since 2021 under ARPA's broad WIC modernization initiative have allowed WIC agencies to continue offering virtual certification appointments to all participants, but without legislation this temporary flexibility will expire.
Participant satisfaction with virtual appointments is very high. In the 2025 survey of 56,000 participants cited above, the average share across agencies of participants reporting attending virtual WIC appointments was 89 percent. More than 9 in 10 participants reported they were somewhat or very satisfied with interacting with staff over phone, text, or video.[18]
Even without waivers, states can make it easier for parents and caretakers to schedule and keep appointments by offering telephone or video appointments for certification when a physical presence exemption applies, or for mid-certification, nutrition education and breastfeeding support appointments.
For appointments when infants or children are not present, it is important to collaborate with health care providers to obtain measurements and blood test results to inform the nutrition assessment. During the COVID pandemic, most state agencies received waivers for obtaining measurements and bloodwork, and many state and local agencies coordinated with health care providers to get this information to inform nutrition assessments during certification appointments conducted by phone or video. WIC participants appreciated this change: 60 percent of respondents surveyed in 2021 cited the ability to use measurements and blood tests from doctors' visits as an advantage of WIC services during the pandemic.[19]
Under the ARPA waivers currently in place, WIC agencies must obtain measurements when offering services virtually but may delay doing so for up to 60 days after the certification appointment. To facilitate phone or video certification appointments, WIC agencies are employing a variety of methods of obtaining applicants' information from health care providers, including incorporating information from electronic health records into referrals and allowing providers to make referrals through health information exchanges.[20] When the relevant information cannot be obtained from a health care provider, WIC agencies sometimes offer "drop-in" visits for parents to bring their infant or child to the WIC site briefly for measurements and blood tests at a convenient time, either before or after a certification appointment is conducted virtually.
Expediting Enrollment for Pregnant Applicants
Federal WIC rules allow WIC state agencies to immediately enroll pregnant individuals who meet income standards as presumptively eligible based on income eligibility, with a nutrition assessment and determination of nutritional risk eligibility completed within 60 days. Some agencies are using this option to establish presumptive eligibility for prenatal applicants with a nutrition assessment within 60 days or, in a few cases, 30 days.
As Figure 2 illustrates, 30 states have adopted this two-step process, which makes it easier to enroll pregnant individuals as soon as they contact WIC to apply. This approach also can facilitate providing WIC's food benefits to individuals earlier in their pregnancy. For example, when a parent of a child participating in WIC shares that they are pregnant during an appointment for their child, they could be enrolled right away (assuming the family remains income-eligible) and begin to receive food benefits immediately. The nutrition assessment and risk determination could be scheduled one or two months later.
For a prenatal applicant who does not have a child participating in WIC, a two-step process may be less overwhelming than a single appointment. The first contact could focus on collecting demographic information, confirming income eligibility, making referrals for prenatal care or other support, assigning a food package, and providing education on WIC foods and how to shop for them. The second contact could focus on a nutrition assessment, nutrition and breastfeeding education, and the participant's questions about shopping or using WIC foods. If the second contact is scheduled after a prenatal health care appointment, measurements and blood test results may be available for use in the nutrition assessment.
Enrolling pregnant individuals and providing food assistance earlier in their pregnancy helps ensure that they receive the maximum benefit from the program. Enrollment earlier in pregnancy is associated with reduced risk of late entry into prenatal care, increased access to healthy foods and essential nutrients vital for fetal development, and greater likelihood of initiating breastfeeding and continuing longer.[21] Yet fewer than half (48 percent) of prenatal participants are enrolled in the first trimester of pregnancy, and the figures are lower for Asian (45 percent), Black (44 percent), and Pacific Islander (38 percent) prenatal participants than for white participants (50 percent).[22] More widespread adoption of presumptive eligibility offers an opportunity to enroll individuals with low incomes earlier in pregnancy, which may yield greater health and nutrition improvements.
* * *
FIGURE 2: 30 WIC State Agencies Provide Food Benefits Immediately to Income-Eligible Pregnant Individuals
* * *
Permitting Self-Declaration of Income
As permitted under federal law, nearly all WIC state agencies allow applicants to self-declare their income when they are unable to provide documentation.[23] This flexibility accommodates vulnerable families such as those who are experiencing homelessness or have been affected by a natural disaster.
Families with no income likely are experiencing substantial hardship. Federal rules allow them to self-declare their income and do not require WIC state agencies to obtain a third-party statement verifying their income.[24] Instead, federal guidance suggests inquiring about their circumstances and how they obtain basic necessities such as food, shelter, medical care, and clothing in order to correctly apply program rules about household size and income, as well as providing important referrals for assistance.[25] As in other circumstances, WIC staff may require third-party verification if they deem it necessary to confirm self-reported information, but third-party verification does not need to be obtained just because a household reports zero income.[26] Nonetheless, 11 state agencies require a third-party statement from all households that report having zero income.
Having periods without any income is not unusual for poor households. In a typical month in 2024, 19 percent of households receiving SNAP benefits -- nearly 4.2 million households -- had zero gross income.[27] There are many situations in which a family can manage temporarily without income: they might be living in public or shared housing, getting food at a food pantry, eating meals at a soup kitchen, or relying on other in-kind benefits. Requiring such families to find an official or entity to document the absence of income creates a special burden for families who likely are extremely fragile or facing a crisis. As a result, such a requirement can prevent or delay vulnerable families from accessing nutrition assistance during periods of prenatal, infant, and child development, when even short periods of food insecurity can have lasting consequences.[28] States can help deliver WIC's essential foods promptly to families without income by utilizing the federal flexibility to eliminate the requirement to document lack of income.
Clarifying Document Retention Policies
State policies vary regarding how local WIC staff are instructed to handle documents that are shared with them to demonstrate eligibility. For applicants who meet eligibility requirements, more than half of state agencies either do not have a document retention policy or have a policy of returning documents to applicants or discarding them. State agency policies requiring documents to be retained are most often limited to income documents.
Several WIC state agencies noted that they require copies of documents to be kept only for applicants found to be ineligible. This is likely a policy in other states, since these documents are important for potential fair hearing requests.
As use of electronic documents increases, applicants will provide fewer paper items, and policies for handling documents with confidential information will likely evolve. It will be increasingly important for state agencies to adopt clear policies for the processes used to collect the documents and for storage or deletion after they are used to determine eligibility. Such policies should balance protecting applicants' privacy, reducing the duration of certification appointments, and using staff time efficiently.
Table 3 shows state agency policies in the four areas discussed above.
* * *
TABLE 3: Certification Policies and Practices: Physical Presence Exemptions, Prenatal Presumptive Eligibility, Income Self-Declaration, and Document Retention
* * *
Digital Tools Help Eligible People Apply for and Participate in WIC
Prior to 2020, only a limited array of interactive digital tools were available to help families apply for WIC. While WIC state agencies included information about eligibility requirements and WIC clinic locations on their websites, most lacked an online option for families to request services or apply for the program. Some local WIC agencies developed online WIC requests or application forms, but these were not available to families statewide. USDA maintained an online eligibility screening tool and many state websites linked to it, but it did not retain applicant information and thus was not useful for follow-up with potential applicants or for eligibility determinations.
As WIC state agencies implemented electronic cards for food benefits in the years preceding the 2020 deadline established under federal law, many began offering downloadable apps to provide participants with information about food benefit balances and shopping assistance. In a few states, the app also shared information about upcoming appointments and links to nutrition education and other resources.
Over the past five years, state WIC agencies have expanded both the number of digital tools available and the functionality of the tools they offer.[29] Experience with virtual services during the pandemic likely made WIC staff and participants more comfortable using digital tools, and WIC state agencies have made technology tools part of their modernization efforts.
Table 4 summarizes the applicant and participant tools available in the 50 geographic states and District of Columbia. CBPP compiled the information by scanning state WIC agency websites and apps, then obtaining state agency reviews and updates.[30] CBPP gathered information on three types of digital tools: tools to initiate the application process, tools that help participants maintain household information or redeem their WIC food benefits at grocery stores, and tools that help manage appointments. For each type of tool, the table notes whether it is provided through a web-based portal or a downloadable app.
Thirty-six state agencies have digital tools available for WIC applicants. (See Figure 3 and Table 4.) Nearly all of these tools collect contact information, and most also gather some of the information needed for an eligibility determination, such as birth date, pregnant/postpartum status, participation in Medicaid or SNAP or TANF, or income. Nineteen states collect information used to schedule appointments, such as best day of week or time of day.
* * *
FIGURE 3: States With Digital Tools to Initiate WIC Applications
* * *
For WIC participants, 48 states have apps and 20 states have portals providing access to specific functions. (See Figure 4 and Table 4.) Most apps and portals enable participants to view information about food benefits and upcoming appointments. Also, almost half of apps and portals show family information such as enrolled family members, address, and phone number, and two states are adding this feature. Thirteen states have apps or portals that allow participants to change certain family information, and one other state is adding this function to its portal.
* * *
FIGURE 4: States With Digital Tools for WIC Participants
* * *
Digital tools also help participants manage their WIC appointments. (See Figure 5 and Table 4.) In 30 states, participants can use an app or portal to request an appointment reminder. In 28 states, participants can use it to view their upcoming appointments, with two more states adding this feature. Appointment reminders are usually sent via text message or app notifications.
Participants in 15 states can request and/or change appointments through the app or portal or another digital tool; two more states are adding this functionality. Scheduling is an app feature that participants surveyed in 2025 indicated would be a desirable change in the states that do not currently offer it.[31] In states that offer scheduling through a digital tool, participants surveyed who are people of color were more likely to use digital tools for scheduling than white participants surveyed.[32]
* * *
FIGURE 5: States With Digital Tools to Manage WIC Appointments
Table 4: Digital Tools for WIC Applicants and Participants
* * *
Digital tools that collect applicant information and allow participants to access and update information and manage appointments make it easier to apply for and participate in WIC. They can also reduce staff time spent on administrative activities. By adopting digital tools, state and local WIC agencies may be able to increase enrollment and retention of the many eligible families who are not participating in WIC.
* * *
Resources to Assist WIC State Agencies With Planning and Implementing Digital Technology
* USDA, "WIC Online Application Toolkit," 2025, https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/application-toolkit.
* Summer J. Weber et al., "Prioritization of Features for Mobile Apps for families in a Federal Nutrition Program for Low-income Women, Infants and Children: User Centered Design Approach," 2021, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8367138/.
* Lauren Ciferri et al., "Toolkit: How to Implement a WIC Participant Recertification Portal," Nava, 2023, https://www.navapbc.com/toolkits/implement-wic-participant-recertification-portal.
* Hilary Dockray et al., "Launching New Digital Tools for WIC Participants, A Guide for WIC Agencies," CBPP, 2019, https://www.cbpp.org/wicparticipanttechnology.
* * *
Conclusion
State and local WIC agencies have flexibility under federal rules to adjust their policies and practices to remove barriers to enrollment, which can help them reach more eligible families with low incomes and use staff time more efficiently and effectively. The policies compiled here demonstrate that WIC administrators have made widespread use of these flexibilities.
Federal policymakers can take further steps to improve access to WIC. For example, they should make telephone and video certification appointments a permanent feature of WIC. They also should provide additional flexibilities that allow states to streamline and modernize the certification process to help more eligible families with low incomes enroll -- especially earlier in pregnancy -- and remain enrolled as infants become toddlers and preschoolers.
Even apart from further federal changes, states can reach more eligible families by adopting the streamlining policies described in this report, especially those that are far from universal. Examples include determining income and/or residence eligibility in advance of the certification appointment, allowing presumptive eligibility for prenatal applicants, allowing temporary 30-day certifications, and eliminating the requirement that zero-income households provide a third-party statement.
States also should expand use of digital tools, which make it easier for eligible families to enroll and participate in WIC for as long as they are eligible, while freeing up staff time to focus on providing WIC's rich array of services. States should employ additional digital tools to help participants accomplish routine tasks like scheduling appointments without having to call a WIC clinic during business hours.
Modernizing WIC through more flexible policies and convenient tools will help states enroll more eligible families, putting children on a healthier course for life.
* * *
End Notes
[1]For more information about the research evidence on WIC's effectiveness, see Steven Carlson, Joseph Llobrera, and Zoe Neuberger, "WIC Works: A Cost-Effective Investment in Improving Low-Income Families' Nutrition and Health," CBPP, updated January 20, 2026, www.cbpp.org/wicworks; U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Nutrition Service, "Reviewing the Evidence for Maternal Health and WIC," July 2021, https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/reviewing-evidence-maternal-health-and-wic; and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, "Maternal and Childhood Outcomes Associated with the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)," amended May 14, 2021, https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/products/outcomes-nutrition/protocol.
[2] Courtenay Kessler et al., "National- and State-level estimates of WIC eligibility and WIC program reach in 2023," USDA, December 2025, https://www.fns.usda.gov/research/wic/eer/2023.
[3] American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, P.L. 117-2, Sec. 1106, 135 Stat. 17.
[4] See USDA, "WIC Policy Memorandum #2023-6: Streamlining Certification - Documentation Guidance," May 10, 2023, https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/streamlining-certification-documentation-guidance.
[5] Linnea Sallack, an independent consultant formerly with the Altarum Institute and the California WIC program, helped compile and summarize state responses.
[6] Pregnant participants are certified until about six weeks after the end of the pregnancy; postpartum participants who are not breastfeeding are certified for about six months after the end of the pregnancy. See 7 C.F.R. Sec.246.7(g).
[7] Zoe Neuberger, "Modernizing and Streamlining WIC Eligibility Determination and Enrollment Processes," CBPP, January 6, 2017, www.cbpp.org/wicstreamlining.
[8] Recipients of other TANF-funded benefits or services are not adjunctively income-eligible for WIC. See 7 C.F.R. Sec.246.7(d)(2)(vi)(A)(2). State agencies are also permitted to accept documentation of participation in other state-administered programs that routinely document income and have income eligibility limits at or below WIC's. See 7 C.F.R. Sec.246.7(d)(2)(vi)(B).
[9] In 2022, 80 percent of WIC applicants participated in Medicaid, SNAP, or TANF. See Polina Zvavitch et al., "WIC Participant and Program Characteristics 2022," FNS, February 2024, Table 4.1, https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/wic-ppc-2022-report.pdf.
[10] Kessler et al., op. cit., Chapter 5.
[11] Sonya Schwartz et al., "State Medicaid Agencies Can Partner with WIC Agencies to Improve the Health of Pregnant and Postpartum People, Infants, and Young Children," CBPP, December 20, 2023, www.cbpp.org/medicaidwicopportunities.
[12] See 7 CFR Sec.246.7(d)(2)(v).
[13] Danielle L. Lee et al., "2025 Multi-State WIC Participant Satisfaction Survey," National WIC Association, May 2026, https://media.nwica.org/2025%20mspss%20report.pdf. Though the WIC agencies included in the sample come from all USDA administrative regions, the survey sample is not nationally representative. Also, the authors averaged responses by state before averaging across all 27 agencies to avoid overrepresenting states with larger sample sizes.
[14] Danielle L. Lee et al., "Multi-State WIC Participant Satisfaction Survey," National WIC Association, February 2024, https://media.nwica.org/2023%20multistate%20wic%20survey%201.pdf.
[15] Zoe Neuberger, "WIC Case Study: Maricopa County, Arizona," CBPP, updated June 2021, https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/8-30-19fa-casestudies-maricopa-county.pdf.
[16] For example, after Colorado conducted training on an existing policy allowing the use of electronic documents for certification, the share of temporary certifications made permanent with electronic documents rose from 43 percent to 65 percent. Zoe Neuberger, "WIC Case Study: Colorado," CBPP, August 30, 2019, https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/8-30-19fa-casestudies-colorado.pdf.
[17] See 7 CFR Sec.246.7 (o)(2).
[18] Lee et al. (2026), op. cit.
[19] Lorrene Ritchie et al., "Multi-state WIC Participant Satisfaction Survey: Learning From Program Adaptations During COVID," National WIC Association, December 2021, nwamulti-state-wic-participant-satisfaction-surveynationalreportfinal.pdf.
[20] Schwartz et al., op. cit., see "Strengthening Referrals" section at https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/state-medicaid-agencies-can-partner-with-wic-agencies-to-improve-the#strengthening-referrals-cbpp-anchor.
[21] Carlson et al., op. cit., see box on "Benefits of Early and Sustained Enrollment in WIC" at https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/wic-works-a-cost-effective-investment-in-improving-low-income-families-0#benefits-of-early-and-sustained-cbpp-anchor.
[22] Zvavitch et al., op. cit., Table 3.3.
[23] Under federal rules, the WIC agency must require the applicant to sign a statement specifying why they cannot provide documentation of income. See 7 C.F.R. Sec. 246.7(d)(2)(v)(C).
[24] Unlike applicants who have income but no documentation of it, applicants with no income are not required to sign a statement specifying why they cannot provide documentation of income. See 7 C.F.R. Sec. 246.7(d)(2)(v)(C).
[25] See Debra Whitford, "WIC Policy Memorandum #2013-3: Income Eligibility Guidance," USDA, April 26, 2013, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/guidance-documents/fns.wic-2013-3_Income_Elig_Guidance.pdf.
[26] See 7 C.F.R. Sec. 246.7(d)(2)(v)(D).
[27] Ben Ward and Mia Monkovic, "Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2024," USDA, May 2026, Table A.1, https://www.fna.usda.gov/research/snap/characteristics-fy24.
[28] Joseph Llobrera and Luis Nunez, "Nearly 2 Million Young Children in the U.S. Lived in Food-Insecure Households in 2023," CBPP, September 15, 2025, https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/nearly-2-million-young-children-in-the-us-lived-in-food-insecure.
[29] See Nava Public Benefit Corporation and the National WIC Association, "Supporting WIC Enrollment -- Using technology to improve the certification experience for participants and WIC agencies," October 20, 2020, https://media.nwica.org/wic-technology-landscape-_-final-report-design.pdf and "2023 WIC Technology Landscape Report--Using technology to improve the enrollment and certification experience for participants and WIC agencies," April 2023, https://media.nwica.org/2023%20wic%20tech%20report%204.5.23.pdf.
[30] For the WIC state agencies that did not respond to a request to review the information, Table 4 includes tools found on their websites.
[31] Lee et al. (2026), op cit.
[32] Ibid., Table 2. Participants surveyed who are people of color includes people who indicated they are American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, Middle Eastern or North African, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, Other, or more than one.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/states-continue-to-streamline-and-modernize-wic
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
States Continue to Streamline and Modernize WIC
Most States Have Adopted Flexibilities and Digital Tools to Simplify Participation for Families
By Zoe Neuberger and Luis Nunez
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) provides healthy foods, nutrition education, breastfeeding support, and referrals to health care and social services to pregnant and postpartum people with low incomes, infants, and children under age 5. Despite the well-documented nutritional ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 -- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued the following report: * * * States Continue to Streamline and Modernize WIC Most States Have Adopted Flexibilities and Digital Tools to Simplify Participation for Families By Zoe Neuberger and Luis Nunez The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) provides healthy foods, nutrition education, breastfeeding support, and referrals to health care and social services to pregnant and postpartum people with low incomes, infants, and children under age 5. Despite the well-documented nutritionaland health benefits associated with WIC participation,[1] in recent years almost half of eligible people (43.9 percent in 2023) have not been enrolled, especially pregnant individuals and children ages 1 through 4.[2]
To reach more eligible families with low incomes, state and local WIC agencies have adjusted their policies and practices to remove barriers to enrollment. These efforts were accelerated under COVID-19-related waivers of certain program rules and continued with waivers authorized under the modernization initiative in the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA).[3] In 2023, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which administers WIC, issued a policy memorandum to clarify available flexibilities for streamlining WIC certification and to encourage WIC state agencies to adopt them; state agencies have responded by implementing additional policy flexibilities.[4]
This report compiles selected state WIC certification policies that CBPP collected from WIC state agencies during 2021 and 2022, with updates and responses to additional questions provided by states in the fall and winter of 2023-2024 and most recently in the winter of 2025-2026. (This report focuses on policy flexibilities that do not require waivers.) CBPP also collected information from state agencies about digital technology tools available to WIC applicants and participants, such as online forms, apps, and portals, for the first time in 2025-2026.[5]
Understanding which policies states have implemented can help federal policymakers update program rules -- legislatively when WIC is reauthorized, or administratively -- and help program administrators in other states implement policies that simplify WIC enrollment and recertification procedures. Understanding which digital tools states are using can help WIC state agencies connect with other states that have implemented technology they want to adopt or features they want to add to existing tools. By adopting these policies and tools, WIC state agencies can make it easier for eligible families to get and stay enrolled and reduce the administrative burden on local staff.
Our compilation of state WIC certification policies shows that:
* Thirty WIC state agencies allow pregnant applicants who meet WIC's income standards to be enrolled immediately, in advance of the nutrition assessment. This enables them to begin receiving food benefits as soon as they are determined to be income-eligible.
* Forty WIC state agencies have eliminated the requirement that households without any income provide a third-party statement verifying their income. Such a requirement can prevent or delay vulnerable families from obtaining nutrition assistance during critical periods of prenatal, infant, and child development.
* Thirty-five WIC state agencies exempt infants and children of working parents from being physically present for certification appointments. While many states currently have a waiver permitting certification by telephone or video conference for all applicants, those that adopt the flexibility to exempt infants and children of working parents can reduce the burden of certification appointments when waivers end.
In addition to widespread adoption of those long-standing policies, nearly all state agencies have implemented one or more policies that USDA's 2023 policy memo on streamlining certification highlighted as available flexibilities to reduce barriers to participation:
* Thirty-eight WIC state agencies allow income and/or residence eligibility to be determined in advance of certification appointments; one additional state is in the process of implementing this policy. Checking income and residence eligibility in advance reduces both the duration of the certification appointment and the number of documents that applicants must provide.
* Forty-eight WIC state agencies explicitly permit applicants to provide electronic documentation, either in person or transmitted by secure electronic methods. The number and types of methods available for sharing documents vary widely, however.
* Forty-four WIC state agencies facilitate prompt enrollment of newborns by using the mother's (or another household member's) participation in Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and/or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) as the basis for eligibility; two additional states are implementing this policy. However, 12 of the states that have implemented this policy do not include participation in SNAP, as permitted by USDA.
* Forty-eight WIC state agencies accept documentation of an applicant's enrollment in Medicaid, SNAP, or TANF to document their residence and/or identity as well as their income; one additional state is implementing this policy.
* Forty-two WIC state agencies allow temporary 30-day certifications to give applicants more time to provide eligibility documents without delaying food benefits.
By adopting more of these flexibilities, WIC state agencies can build on the increase in WIC coverage between 2021, when 51.2 percent of eligible people participated, and 2023, when the share rose to 56.1 percent. All of the policies described in this report are allowed under regular program rules, will remain available to states after the ARPA-related waivers expire, and can be adopted by states by amending their state plan, revising their policy manual, or both.
State agencies have also deployed a range of digital tools to make information more accessible to participants and to help families apply for WIC benefits and services:
* Thirty-six WIC state agencies offer a digital tool to assist families with starting the process of applying for WIC. The types of information collected from applicants vary, with nearly all states collecting contact information and most also gathering some of the information needed for an eligibility determination. Nineteen of the states collect information used to schedule appointments.
* Participants in 49 states can view their food benefits through a digital tool. In 44 states, participants can access information to assist them with shopping for WIC foods.
* Participants in 20 states can view family information, such as enrolled family members, address, and phone numbers, and two additional states are adding this information to a digital tool. In 13 of these states, participants may change certain family information, and one more is adding this functionality.
* Participants in 30 states can use a digital tool to request an automated appointment reminder. In 28 states, participants can view their upcoming appointments, with two more states adding this feature. Participants in 15 states can request and/or change appointments; two more states are adding this functionality.
More widespread use of all available policy flexibilities and expanded use of digital tools would allow eligible individuals to receive benefits more easily and promptly, and help them participate for as long as they are eligible. This would increase WIC enrollment and improve health outcomes while also reducing administrative tasks for staff, freeing up time to provide nutrition and breastfeeding services.
* * *
Assessing Your WIC Certification Practices
A CBPP toolkit to help WIC agencies modernize and streamline the certification process is available at www.cbpp.org/wiccertificationtoolkit. It includes descriptions of practices for facilitating WIC enrollment and simplifying eligibility determinations, along with examples from WIC state and local agencies and additional resources.
* * *
Many States Have Updated Their Certification Policies and Practices and Adopted or Enhanced Digital Tools
WIC agencies assess eligibility for benefits when applicants first apply and periodically thereafter. The program serves certain categories of applicants: infants and children under age 5, pregnant individuals, and, for up to one year, postpartum individuals. Additional eligibility criteria include income, residence, and nutritional risk. Applicants are also required to provide identification. Under federal law, WIC state agencies may establish certification periods of one year rather than six months for breastfeeding parents, infants, and children ages 1 through 4.[6] All states and the District of Columbia have adopted full-year certification for all of these categories.
While WIC programs operate under certain federal eligibility rules and policies, state and local WIC agencies have considerable flexibility to determine how they certify new applicants and recertify participants. WIC state agencies set policies and procedures for certifying eligibility, and local agencies or clinics implement these within the context of their staffing patterns and facilities. As a result, WIC agencies employ a wide range of certification options and a variety of processes. Many state and local WIC agencies have changed their certification processes since CBPP issued its initial report on this issue in 2017.[7] Among other factors, the COVID-19 pandemic required agencies to adopt new ways of certifying and serving participants. Increased use of technology and experience with virtual appointments have increased flexibility and simplified certification processes while inspiring creative ways of gathering information.
As a result, many promising practices have emerged. Practices such as online applications and electronic referrals from health care providers simplify WIC enrollment, which helps both participants and staff. Increased coordination with health care providers reduces the need for families to provide duplicative information and for WIC staff to collect measurements and bloodwork, thereby streamlining the certification process and enhancing continuity of care.
To document some of the changes, CBPP has periodically asked the 50 geographic WIC state agencies to update the information about certification policies and practices published in the 2017 report and to respond to questions about additional items.The District of Columbia was also asked to provide the information starting in 2022. While U.S. Territories and tribal organizations are also considered state agencies operating the WIC program, their policies are not included in this report. The geographic state agencies serve the vast majority of WIC participants (99 percent in fiscal year 2025).
Nearly all states responded to CBPP's requests for updates in 2021 and 2022 (47 of 50 in 2021 and 48 of 51 in 2022); most (42 of 51) also provided updates in 2023-2024. All but three state agencies responded to the most recent request for updates during the winter of 2025-2026. These states also provided new information about digital tools, such as online forms for requesting WIC benefits, apps, and participant portals, that CBPP had not collected in the past. This report summarizes the information they provided in four areas: adopting adjunctive eligibility, broadening options for applicants to document eligibility, adopting other policies to streamline certification, and offering digital tools for applicants and participants. Each section includes a table listing policies and practices across the state agencies. The range of certification processes and digital tools shown in the tables can help federal stakeholders understand their use and help state program administrators connect with peers to learn about different approaches.
Adjunctive Eligibility Simplifies Enrollment
To help ensure that low-income families with young children receive the benefits and supports for which they qualify and to avoid duplicative administrative work, policymakers have streamlined enrollment across benefit programs through a policy known as adjunctive eligibility. Under federal law, applicants who are enrolled in Medicaid or SNAP or receive monthly TANF cash assistance are automatically considered income-eligible, or adjunctively eligible, for WIC.[8] This long-standing policy simplifies WIC eligibility determinations for more than 3 in 4 applicants.[9] Nonetheless, USDA estimates that nationwide, nearly half of WIC-eligible people receiving Medicaid or SNAP (or both) did not access WIC in 2023.[10] Targeted outreach to these groups and robust referrals from health care providers are important ways of increasing WIC take-up.[11]
During the certification process, WIC agencies are required to attempt to determine if the applicant is adjunctively income-eligible before performing a traditional income determination. State agencies must include procedures in their annual state plan for obtaining adjunctive eligibility information prior to the certification appointment.[12] While nearly all states accept an applicant's paper documentation of Medicaid, SNAP, or TANF participation, such as an eligibility determination letter, they also use a variety of other options to check for participation. All WIC agencies have access to online portals, data, or automated phone systems set up by at least one of the other programs; 16 agencies have integrated a process to check for adjunctive eligibility into their WIC information system and three more are developing an integrated process. (See Table 1.)
USDA's 2023 policy memo on streamlining certification notes that infants are considered income-eligible for WIC if their parents are enrolled in Medicaid or their families receive SNAP or TANF; no documentation that the infant receives those benefits is necessary. USDA encouraged state agencies to implement this policy to facilitate timely WIC enrollment of newborns; 44 states have already done so and two others are implementing it. Most (41) of these states certify income-eligibility for infants of participants enrolled in Medicaid. (See Table 3.) Fewer states (32) report permitting it for infants born into families enrolled in SNAP; by adopting this change, states can facilitate timely enrollment of infants in families participating in SNAP or TANF but not Medicaid.
Nearly all WIC state agencies accept documentation of enrollment in Medicaid, SNAP, or TANF to meet both income and residence requirements if that program checks residence within the state as part of its eligibility process. Enrollment in these programs is also used to document identification in most states, which maximizes the benefit of checking for adjunctive eligibility. USDA encourages state agencies to permit one source to document multiple eligibility factors to make the process easier for both participants and staff.
Table 1 shows how state agencies direct local staff to check for adjunctive eligibility. It also lists which states use adjunctive eligibility documentation to document residence and/or identity in addition to income.
* * *
TABLE 1: WIC Certification Policies and Practices: Methods for Checking Adjunctive Eligibility
* * *
States Have Broadened Options for Applicants to Document Eligibility
Federal rules allow WIC staff to accept documents that are shown in electronic form during in-person appointments or transmitted electronically, and USDA's policy memo on streamlining certification requires WIC state agencies to develop policies for the secure use of online and/or electronic resources. Nearly all states include a policy on the use of electronic documents for certification in their policy manuals. But the options available to applicants for sharing electronic documents vary.
Prior to the pandemic, it was uncommon for WIC agencies to offer a mechanism to transmit documents electronically. But all states established such mechanisms as they transitioned to conducting certification appointments by telephone or video to protect participants and WIC staff after the onset of COVID-19. Now state policies allow for a range of methods for participants to rely on electronic documents before, during, or after certification appointments.
Applicants (whether applying for the first time or being recertified) can show documents on their telephones during in-person or video appointments, or they can send a photo or screenshot of a document via text message, email, or fax. Also, a growing number of states are setting up secure methods for participants to upload documents, with 22 states reporting that they offer this option in 2025-2026. In some states, document uploading capability is part of an online application or is a feature within their WIC portals or mobile apps, while others offer standalone tools for uploading documents.
In a 2025 survey of more than 56,000 WIC participants conducted in 25 geographic state agencies and two agencies in Indian Tribal Organizations, an average 61 percent of participants reported using a method other than in-person to provide documents for certification. The methods most frequently used included a website, portal, WIC app, or online application (43 percent of all respondents); text messaging (39 percent); and email (36 percent). More than 9 in 10 of those who shared their personal information with WIC using any of those virtual methods found it somewhat or very easy to do so.[13] In a 2023 survey of WIC participants, respondents rated their comfort with using virtual methods for sharing personal information with WIC at an average of 3.5 out of 4 across all virtual methods.[14] While these findings are encouraging, it is also important for state and local agencies to adopt measures to protect the confidentiality of the information provided without sacrificing ease of use.
USDA's policy memo on streamlining certification encouraged WIC state agencies to "utilize tools at their disposal to collect information and documents in advance of certification appointments to identify any missing items and streamline the certification process." It also encouraged state agencies that can access applicable sources to assess whether a participant nearing the end of their certification period remains adjunctively income-eligible in advance of their recertification appointment.
Thirty-eight WIC state agencies permit local staff to determine income and/or residence eligibility in advance of the certification appointment (with advance times ranging from the same day to 30 days), and one additional state is implementing this policy. (See Figure 1.) Thirty-nine WIC state agencies allow adjunctive eligibility to be checked before a recertification appointment; most of them permit staff to use available methods (such as an automated phone system or online portal) and permit participants to submit documents by email or other methods.
By maximizing the use of electronic documents and adjunctive eligibility, especially in advance of certification appointments, additional states could reduce the duration of certification appointments, the number of documents that applicants must provide, and the number of applicants with incomplete documentation.
* * *
FIGURE 1: 38 WIC State Agencies Simplify Certification Appointments by Allowing Advance Determinations of Income and/or Residence Eligibility
* * *
When applicants do not have all the required documentation, most state agencies permit a temporary 30-day certification to give them more time to provide eligibility documents without delaying food benefits. USDA's policy memo on streamlining certification strongly encourages state agencies to use existing flexibilities to minimize barriers to benefits, including by granting a temporary 30-day certification period if an applicant can provide two of the three documents required to determine eligibility (identity, residency, and income). If a temporary certification period is initiated, the applicant must provide appropriate documentation within 30 days to continue receiving benefits. Flexible, electronic options for submitting the information without having to return to the clinic are important to help participants with temporary certifications become fully certified.
Some state and local agencies monitor the number of temporary certifications as well as the number of these that become full certifications. If many participants are certified for only 30 days, this may indicate a need for staff training on maximizing the use of electronic documents. For example, by training staff to view and receive documents electronically, Maricopa County, Arizona, lowered the share of certifications that were temporary because clients had not provided all required documents from 26 percent to 2 percent.[15] In addition, a high rate of temporary certifications that do not become full certifications may warrant more follow-up assistance to ensure that eligible and interested families are able to submit the documentation necessary to continue receiving benefits.[16]
Table 2 compiles state policies on using electronic documents, checking eligibility prior to certification appointments, and granting temporary certifications.
* * *
TABLE 2: WIC Certification Policies and Practices: Using Electronic Eligibility Documentation, Checking Eligibility Prior to Certification Appointments, and Granting Temporary Certifications
* * *
States Can Adopt Other Policies to Streamline Certification
Described below are several other ways in which WIC state agencies can adjust their policies, and local agencies can adjust their practices, to make the certification process easier to navigate and less burdensome for both participants and staff.
Exempting Some Individuals From In-Person Appointments
Federal law permits WIC state agencies to exempt certain individuals from the requirement that applicants be physically present at certification appointments. They include infants or children receiving ongoing health care (after the initial certification), infants or children with working parents (after the initial certification and with a limit on how much time can elapse between in-person appointments), and newborn infants under 8 weeks old. For adults, exemptions from the physical presence requirement are limited to individuals with disabilities.[17]
Under short-term waivers approved by the USDA during the pandemic, state agencies made virtual appointments available to all WIC applicants and participants to protect the health of families and WIC staff. Participants were offered telephone and video certification appointments and options for providing eligibility information without visiting a WIC office. New waivers granted since 2021 under ARPA's broad WIC modernization initiative have allowed WIC agencies to continue offering virtual certification appointments to all participants, but without legislation this temporary flexibility will expire.
Participant satisfaction with virtual appointments is very high. In the 2025 survey of 56,000 participants cited above, the average share across agencies of participants reporting attending virtual WIC appointments was 89 percent. More than 9 in 10 participants reported they were somewhat or very satisfied with interacting with staff over phone, text, or video.[18]
Even without waivers, states can make it easier for parents and caretakers to schedule and keep appointments by offering telephone or video appointments for certification when a physical presence exemption applies, or for mid-certification, nutrition education and breastfeeding support appointments.
For appointments when infants or children are not present, it is important to collaborate with health care providers to obtain measurements and blood test results to inform the nutrition assessment. During the COVID pandemic, most state agencies received waivers for obtaining measurements and bloodwork, and many state and local agencies coordinated with health care providers to get this information to inform nutrition assessments during certification appointments conducted by phone or video. WIC participants appreciated this change: 60 percent of respondents surveyed in 2021 cited the ability to use measurements and blood tests from doctors' visits as an advantage of WIC services during the pandemic.[19]
Under the ARPA waivers currently in place, WIC agencies must obtain measurements when offering services virtually but may delay doing so for up to 60 days after the certification appointment. To facilitate phone or video certification appointments, WIC agencies are employing a variety of methods of obtaining applicants' information from health care providers, including incorporating information from electronic health records into referrals and allowing providers to make referrals through health information exchanges.[20] When the relevant information cannot be obtained from a health care provider, WIC agencies sometimes offer "drop-in" visits for parents to bring their infant or child to the WIC site briefly for measurements and blood tests at a convenient time, either before or after a certification appointment is conducted virtually.
Expediting Enrollment for Pregnant Applicants
Federal WIC rules allow WIC state agencies to immediately enroll pregnant individuals who meet income standards as presumptively eligible based on income eligibility, with a nutrition assessment and determination of nutritional risk eligibility completed within 60 days. Some agencies are using this option to establish presumptive eligibility for prenatal applicants with a nutrition assessment within 60 days or, in a few cases, 30 days.
As Figure 2 illustrates, 30 states have adopted this two-step process, which makes it easier to enroll pregnant individuals as soon as they contact WIC to apply. This approach also can facilitate providing WIC's food benefits to individuals earlier in their pregnancy. For example, when a parent of a child participating in WIC shares that they are pregnant during an appointment for their child, they could be enrolled right away (assuming the family remains income-eligible) and begin to receive food benefits immediately. The nutrition assessment and risk determination could be scheduled one or two months later.
For a prenatal applicant who does not have a child participating in WIC, a two-step process may be less overwhelming than a single appointment. The first contact could focus on collecting demographic information, confirming income eligibility, making referrals for prenatal care or other support, assigning a food package, and providing education on WIC foods and how to shop for them. The second contact could focus on a nutrition assessment, nutrition and breastfeeding education, and the participant's questions about shopping or using WIC foods. If the second contact is scheduled after a prenatal health care appointment, measurements and blood test results may be available for use in the nutrition assessment.
Enrolling pregnant individuals and providing food assistance earlier in their pregnancy helps ensure that they receive the maximum benefit from the program. Enrollment earlier in pregnancy is associated with reduced risk of late entry into prenatal care, increased access to healthy foods and essential nutrients vital for fetal development, and greater likelihood of initiating breastfeeding and continuing longer.[21] Yet fewer than half (48 percent) of prenatal participants are enrolled in the first trimester of pregnancy, and the figures are lower for Asian (45 percent), Black (44 percent), and Pacific Islander (38 percent) prenatal participants than for white participants (50 percent).[22] More widespread adoption of presumptive eligibility offers an opportunity to enroll individuals with low incomes earlier in pregnancy, which may yield greater health and nutrition improvements.
* * *
FIGURE 2: 30 WIC State Agencies Provide Food Benefits Immediately to Income-Eligible Pregnant Individuals
* * *
Permitting Self-Declaration of Income
As permitted under federal law, nearly all WIC state agencies allow applicants to self-declare their income when they are unable to provide documentation.[23] This flexibility accommodates vulnerable families such as those who are experiencing homelessness or have been affected by a natural disaster.
Families with no income likely are experiencing substantial hardship. Federal rules allow them to self-declare their income and do not require WIC state agencies to obtain a third-party statement verifying their income.[24] Instead, federal guidance suggests inquiring about their circumstances and how they obtain basic necessities such as food, shelter, medical care, and clothing in order to correctly apply program rules about household size and income, as well as providing important referrals for assistance.[25] As in other circumstances, WIC staff may require third-party verification if they deem it necessary to confirm self-reported information, but third-party verification does not need to be obtained just because a household reports zero income.[26] Nonetheless, 11 state agencies require a third-party statement from all households that report having zero income.
Having periods without any income is not unusual for poor households. In a typical month in 2024, 19 percent of households receiving SNAP benefits -- nearly 4.2 million households -- had zero gross income.[27] There are many situations in which a family can manage temporarily without income: they might be living in public or shared housing, getting food at a food pantry, eating meals at a soup kitchen, or relying on other in-kind benefits. Requiring such families to find an official or entity to document the absence of income creates a special burden for families who likely are extremely fragile or facing a crisis. As a result, such a requirement can prevent or delay vulnerable families from accessing nutrition assistance during periods of prenatal, infant, and child development, when even short periods of food insecurity can have lasting consequences.[28] States can help deliver WIC's essential foods promptly to families without income by utilizing the federal flexibility to eliminate the requirement to document lack of income.
Clarifying Document Retention Policies
State policies vary regarding how local WIC staff are instructed to handle documents that are shared with them to demonstrate eligibility. For applicants who meet eligibility requirements, more than half of state agencies either do not have a document retention policy or have a policy of returning documents to applicants or discarding them. State agency policies requiring documents to be retained are most often limited to income documents.
Several WIC state agencies noted that they require copies of documents to be kept only for applicants found to be ineligible. This is likely a policy in other states, since these documents are important for potential fair hearing requests.
As use of electronic documents increases, applicants will provide fewer paper items, and policies for handling documents with confidential information will likely evolve. It will be increasingly important for state agencies to adopt clear policies for the processes used to collect the documents and for storage or deletion after they are used to determine eligibility. Such policies should balance protecting applicants' privacy, reducing the duration of certification appointments, and using staff time efficiently.
Table 3 shows state agency policies in the four areas discussed above.
* * *
TABLE 3: Certification Policies and Practices: Physical Presence Exemptions, Prenatal Presumptive Eligibility, Income Self-Declaration, and Document Retention
* * *
Digital Tools Help Eligible People Apply for and Participate in WIC
Prior to 2020, only a limited array of interactive digital tools were available to help families apply for WIC. While WIC state agencies included information about eligibility requirements and WIC clinic locations on their websites, most lacked an online option for families to request services or apply for the program. Some local WIC agencies developed online WIC requests or application forms, but these were not available to families statewide. USDA maintained an online eligibility screening tool and many state websites linked to it, but it did not retain applicant information and thus was not useful for follow-up with potential applicants or for eligibility determinations.
As WIC state agencies implemented electronic cards for food benefits in the years preceding the 2020 deadline established under federal law, many began offering downloadable apps to provide participants with information about food benefit balances and shopping assistance. In a few states, the app also shared information about upcoming appointments and links to nutrition education and other resources.
Over the past five years, state WIC agencies have expanded both the number of digital tools available and the functionality of the tools they offer.[29] Experience with virtual services during the pandemic likely made WIC staff and participants more comfortable using digital tools, and WIC state agencies have made technology tools part of their modernization efforts.
Table 4 summarizes the applicant and participant tools available in the 50 geographic states and District of Columbia. CBPP compiled the information by scanning state WIC agency websites and apps, then obtaining state agency reviews and updates.[30] CBPP gathered information on three types of digital tools: tools to initiate the application process, tools that help participants maintain household information or redeem their WIC food benefits at grocery stores, and tools that help manage appointments. For each type of tool, the table notes whether it is provided through a web-based portal or a downloadable app.
Thirty-six state agencies have digital tools available for WIC applicants. (See Figure 3 and Table 4.) Nearly all of these tools collect contact information, and most also gather some of the information needed for an eligibility determination, such as birth date, pregnant/postpartum status, participation in Medicaid or SNAP or TANF, or income. Nineteen states collect information used to schedule appointments, such as best day of week or time of day.
* * *
FIGURE 3: States With Digital Tools to Initiate WIC Applications
* * *
For WIC participants, 48 states have apps and 20 states have portals providing access to specific functions. (See Figure 4 and Table 4.) Most apps and portals enable participants to view information about food benefits and upcoming appointments. Also, almost half of apps and portals show family information such as enrolled family members, address, and phone number, and two states are adding this feature. Thirteen states have apps or portals that allow participants to change certain family information, and one other state is adding this function to its portal.
* * *
FIGURE 4: States With Digital Tools for WIC Participants
* * *
Digital tools also help participants manage their WIC appointments. (See Figure 5 and Table 4.) In 30 states, participants can use an app or portal to request an appointment reminder. In 28 states, participants can use it to view their upcoming appointments, with two more states adding this feature. Appointment reminders are usually sent via text message or app notifications.
Participants in 15 states can request and/or change appointments through the app or portal or another digital tool; two more states are adding this functionality. Scheduling is an app feature that participants surveyed in 2025 indicated would be a desirable change in the states that do not currently offer it.[31] In states that offer scheduling through a digital tool, participants surveyed who are people of color were more likely to use digital tools for scheduling than white participants surveyed.[32]
* * *
FIGURE 5: States With Digital Tools to Manage WIC Appointments
Table 4: Digital Tools for WIC Applicants and Participants
* * *
Digital tools that collect applicant information and allow participants to access and update information and manage appointments make it easier to apply for and participate in WIC. They can also reduce staff time spent on administrative activities. By adopting digital tools, state and local WIC agencies may be able to increase enrollment and retention of the many eligible families who are not participating in WIC.
* * *
Resources to Assist WIC State Agencies With Planning and Implementing Digital Technology
* USDA, "WIC Online Application Toolkit," 2025, https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/application-toolkit.
* Summer J. Weber et al., "Prioritization of Features for Mobile Apps for families in a Federal Nutrition Program for Low-income Women, Infants and Children: User Centered Design Approach," 2021, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8367138/.
* Lauren Ciferri et al., "Toolkit: How to Implement a WIC Participant Recertification Portal," Nava, 2023, https://www.navapbc.com/toolkits/implement-wic-participant-recertification-portal.
* Hilary Dockray et al., "Launching New Digital Tools for WIC Participants, A Guide for WIC Agencies," CBPP, 2019, https://www.cbpp.org/wicparticipanttechnology.
* * *
Conclusion
State and local WIC agencies have flexibility under federal rules to adjust their policies and practices to remove barriers to enrollment, which can help them reach more eligible families with low incomes and use staff time more efficiently and effectively. The policies compiled here demonstrate that WIC administrators have made widespread use of these flexibilities.
Federal policymakers can take further steps to improve access to WIC. For example, they should make telephone and video certification appointments a permanent feature of WIC. They also should provide additional flexibilities that allow states to streamline and modernize the certification process to help more eligible families with low incomes enroll -- especially earlier in pregnancy -- and remain enrolled as infants become toddlers and preschoolers.
Even apart from further federal changes, states can reach more eligible families by adopting the streamlining policies described in this report, especially those that are far from universal. Examples include determining income and/or residence eligibility in advance of the certification appointment, allowing presumptive eligibility for prenatal applicants, allowing temporary 30-day certifications, and eliminating the requirement that zero-income households provide a third-party statement.
States also should expand use of digital tools, which make it easier for eligible families to enroll and participate in WIC for as long as they are eligible, while freeing up staff time to focus on providing WIC's rich array of services. States should employ additional digital tools to help participants accomplish routine tasks like scheduling appointments without having to call a WIC clinic during business hours.
Modernizing WIC through more flexible policies and convenient tools will help states enroll more eligible families, putting children on a healthier course for life.
* * *
End Notes
[1]For more information about the research evidence on WIC's effectiveness, see Steven Carlson, Joseph Llobrera, and Zoe Neuberger, "WIC Works: A Cost-Effective Investment in Improving Low-Income Families' Nutrition and Health," CBPP, updated January 20, 2026, www.cbpp.org/wicworks; U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Nutrition Service, "Reviewing the Evidence for Maternal Health and WIC," July 2021, https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/reviewing-evidence-maternal-health-and-wic; and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, "Maternal and Childhood Outcomes Associated with the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)," amended May 14, 2021, https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/products/outcomes-nutrition/protocol.
[2] Courtenay Kessler et al., "National- and State-level estimates of WIC eligibility and WIC program reach in 2023," USDA, December 2025, https://www.fns.usda.gov/research/wic/eer/2023.
[3] American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, P.L. 117-2, Sec. 1106, 135 Stat. 17.
[4] See USDA, "WIC Policy Memorandum #2023-6: Streamlining Certification - Documentation Guidance," May 10, 2023, https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/streamlining-certification-documentation-guidance.
[5] Linnea Sallack, an independent consultant formerly with the Altarum Institute and the California WIC program, helped compile and summarize state responses.
[6] Pregnant participants are certified until about six weeks after the end of the pregnancy; postpartum participants who are not breastfeeding are certified for about six months after the end of the pregnancy. See 7 C.F.R. Sec.246.7(g).
[7] Zoe Neuberger, "Modernizing and Streamlining WIC Eligibility Determination and Enrollment Processes," CBPP, January 6, 2017, www.cbpp.org/wicstreamlining.
[8] Recipients of other TANF-funded benefits or services are not adjunctively income-eligible for WIC. See 7 C.F.R. Sec.246.7(d)(2)(vi)(A)(2). State agencies are also permitted to accept documentation of participation in other state-administered programs that routinely document income and have income eligibility limits at or below WIC's. See 7 C.F.R. Sec.246.7(d)(2)(vi)(B).
[9] In 2022, 80 percent of WIC applicants participated in Medicaid, SNAP, or TANF. See Polina Zvavitch et al., "WIC Participant and Program Characteristics 2022," FNS, February 2024, Table 4.1, https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/wic-ppc-2022-report.pdf.
[10] Kessler et al., op. cit., Chapter 5.
[11] Sonya Schwartz et al., "State Medicaid Agencies Can Partner with WIC Agencies to Improve the Health of Pregnant and Postpartum People, Infants, and Young Children," CBPP, December 20, 2023, www.cbpp.org/medicaidwicopportunities.
[12] See 7 CFR Sec.246.7(d)(2)(v).
[13] Danielle L. Lee et al., "2025 Multi-State WIC Participant Satisfaction Survey," National WIC Association, May 2026, https://media.nwica.org/2025%20mspss%20report.pdf. Though the WIC agencies included in the sample come from all USDA administrative regions, the survey sample is not nationally representative. Also, the authors averaged responses by state before averaging across all 27 agencies to avoid overrepresenting states with larger sample sizes.
[14] Danielle L. Lee et al., "Multi-State WIC Participant Satisfaction Survey," National WIC Association, February 2024, https://media.nwica.org/2023%20multistate%20wic%20survey%201.pdf.
[15] Zoe Neuberger, "WIC Case Study: Maricopa County, Arizona," CBPP, updated June 2021, https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/8-30-19fa-casestudies-maricopa-county.pdf.
[16] For example, after Colorado conducted training on an existing policy allowing the use of electronic documents for certification, the share of temporary certifications made permanent with electronic documents rose from 43 percent to 65 percent. Zoe Neuberger, "WIC Case Study: Colorado," CBPP, August 30, 2019, https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/8-30-19fa-casestudies-colorado.pdf.
[17] See 7 CFR Sec.246.7 (o)(2).
[18] Lee et al. (2026), op. cit.
[19] Lorrene Ritchie et al., "Multi-state WIC Participant Satisfaction Survey: Learning From Program Adaptations During COVID," National WIC Association, December 2021, nwamulti-state-wic-participant-satisfaction-surveynationalreportfinal.pdf.
[20] Schwartz et al., op. cit., see "Strengthening Referrals" section at https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/state-medicaid-agencies-can-partner-with-wic-agencies-to-improve-the#strengthening-referrals-cbpp-anchor.
[21] Carlson et al., op. cit., see box on "Benefits of Early and Sustained Enrollment in WIC" at https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/wic-works-a-cost-effective-investment-in-improving-low-income-families-0#benefits-of-early-and-sustained-cbpp-anchor.
[22] Zvavitch et al., op. cit., Table 3.3.
[23] Under federal rules, the WIC agency must require the applicant to sign a statement specifying why they cannot provide documentation of income. See 7 C.F.R. Sec. 246.7(d)(2)(v)(C).
[24] Unlike applicants who have income but no documentation of it, applicants with no income are not required to sign a statement specifying why they cannot provide documentation of income. See 7 C.F.R. Sec. 246.7(d)(2)(v)(C).
[25] See Debra Whitford, "WIC Policy Memorandum #2013-3: Income Eligibility Guidance," USDA, April 26, 2013, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/guidance-documents/fns.wic-2013-3_Income_Elig_Guidance.pdf.
[26] See 7 C.F.R. Sec. 246.7(d)(2)(v)(D).
[27] Ben Ward and Mia Monkovic, "Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2024," USDA, May 2026, Table A.1, https://www.fna.usda.gov/research/snap/characteristics-fy24.
[28] Joseph Llobrera and Luis Nunez, "Nearly 2 Million Young Children in the U.S. Lived in Food-Insecure Households in 2023," CBPP, September 15, 2025, https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/nearly-2-million-young-children-in-the-us-lived-in-food-insecure.
[29] See Nava Public Benefit Corporation and the National WIC Association, "Supporting WIC Enrollment -- Using technology to improve the certification experience for participants and WIC agencies," October 20, 2020, https://media.nwica.org/wic-technology-landscape-_-final-report-design.pdf and "2023 WIC Technology Landscape Report--Using technology to improve the enrollment and certification experience for participants and WIC agencies," April 2023, https://media.nwica.org/2023%20wic%20tech%20report%204.5.23.pdf.
[30] For the WIC state agencies that did not respond to a request to review the information, Table 4 includes tools found on their websites.
[31] Lee et al. (2026), op cit.
[32] Ibid., Table 2. Participants surveyed who are people of color includes people who indicated they are American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, Middle Eastern or North African, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, Other, or more than one.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/states-continue-to-streamline-and-modernize-wic
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center Issues Report: Enemies of Energy - Electric Vehicles and Emissions
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following excerpts of a report:
* * *
Enemies of Energy: Electric vehicles and emissions
So, after 17 years of taxpayer support, many EVs are literally coal-powered cars. While that's an ironic outcome, it is not a major one because nearly two decades of EV subsidies didn't lead to many EV buyers.
By Ken Braun
Editor's note: The following is an excerpt from the "Myths and Misconceptions" section of Enemies of Energy, a research report created for the Capital Research Center. The page for the full report is here: Enemies of Energy.
-
Another ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following excerpts of a report: * * * Enemies of Energy: Electric vehicles and emissions So, after 17 years of taxpayer support, many EVs are literally coal-powered cars. While that's an ironic outcome, it is not a major one because nearly two decades of EV subsidies didn't lead to many EV buyers. By Ken Braun Editor's note: The following is an excerpt from the "Myths and Misconceptions" section of Enemies of Energy, a research report created for the Capital Research Center. The page for the full report is here: Enemies of Energy. - Anothermajor recipient of federal subsidies has been the electric vehicle (EV) market. Just one of these, a $7,500 consumer tax credit for the purchase of EVs, was created in 2008 and lasted for the next 17 years until Congress and the Trump administration killed it off in 2025.[i]
The assumption promoted by politicians and anti-energy NGOs to justify these payoffs is that EVs produce no greenhouse gas emissions because rather than running on gasoline or diesel they use ... electricity.
But electricity is a mere carrier of energy, not a source. And according to the U.S. Department of Energy, 78 percent of American electricity is still generated with hydrocarbons and nuclear fuels.[ii]
Each electric vehicle charging up in America is more likely to be powered by coal, natural gas, or petroleum (60 percent of total electricity generation fuels) than it is to run on wind or solar (14 percent of total electricity fuels). Coal alone still accounts for 16 percent of total electricity production.[iii]
So, after 17 years of taxpayer support, many EVs are literally coal-powered cars.
While that's an ironic outcome, it is not a major one because nearly two decades of EV subsidies didn't lead to many EV buyers. The market share for American EV purchases did not break above 10 percent until the final year of the program--last year--and then only because the subsidy had been killed off, which led to the last holdout buyers cashing in before the subsidies expired.[iv]
Ford Motor Company is emblematic of the EV disaster. In December 2025, Ford announced it was shifting away from the EV market to focus on gasoline engines and gas-electric hybrids. According to a Wall Street Journal report, Ford had lost "$13 billion on its EV business since 2023" and was taking an additional write down of $19.5 billion, for a total EV red ink bath of $32.5 billion. The report noted smaller losses and similar pivots away from EVs by General Motors.[v]
Putting the Ford debacle in concrete terms, energy journalist Robert Bryce kept tabs in real-time on the EV deficits as a share of each EV sold. In Q2 of 2023, he reported $72,762 was lost for each EV Ford dealers moved out the door. (When the red ink exceeds the total price of most new vehicles, perhaps "sold" is a misleading term?) For Q3 of 2024, Bryce calculated the deficit was down to a mere $58,391 per EV. On and on it went, with quarterly losses always at or exceeding $40,000 per vehicle.[vi][vii]
In June 2022, Ford CEO Jim Farley boasted that he didn't need to advertise the F-150 Lightning EV pickup because the truck would sell itself. By December 2025, the Wall Street Journal was reporting that Ford would "stop making an EV version of its F-150 pickup truck, called the Lightning."[viii][ix]
* * *
Endnotes
[i] Schwab, Grant. "Marked by Success and Controversy, EV Tax Credit Ends After a 17-Year Run." The Detroit News. September 29, 2025. Accessed January 6, 2026. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2025/09/29/marked-by-success-controversy-ev-tax-credit-ends-after-a-17-year-run/86331734007/
[ii] "Electricity Explained." Energy Information Agency. U.S. Department of Energy. Accessed January 5, 2026. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/
[iii] "Electricity Explained." Energy Information Agency. U.S. Department of Energy. Accessed January 5, 2026. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/
[iv] Schwab, Grant. "Marked by Success and Controversy, EV Tax Credit Ends After a 17-Year Run." The Detroit News. September 29, 2025. Accessed January 6, 2026. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2025/09/29/marked-by-success-controversy-ev-tax-credit-ends-after-a-17-year-run/86331734007/
[v] Terlep, Sharon. "Ford Takes $19.5 Billion Hit in Detroit's Biggest EV Bust." Wall Street Journal. December 15, 2025. Accessed January 6, 2026. https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/ford-takes-19-5-billion-charge-to-write-down-ev-investments-333a9bc4?mod=Searchresults&pos=2&page=1
[vi] Bryce, Robert. "Unplugged: Ford Lost $72,762 For Every EV It Sold In Q2." Robert Bryce (Substack). July 27, 2023. Accessed January 6, 2026. https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/unplugged-ford-lost-72762-for-every
[vii] Bryce, Robert. "Ford Lost Another $1.2 Billion in 3Q On EVs." Robert Bryce (Substack). October 28, 2024. Accessed January 6, 2026. https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/ford-lost-another-12-billion-in-3q
[viii] "Ford's CEO Sees EVs Helping Carmaker Pare Its $3 Billion Ad Budget." Bloomberg. June 1, 2022. Accessed January 6, 2026. https://www.macheforum.com/site/threads/farley-ford-to-stop-traditional-advertising-for-mach-e-lightning-ev.18326/
[ix] Terlep, Sharon. "Ford Takes $19.5 Billion Hit in Detroit's Biggest EV Bust." Wall Street Journal. December 15, 2025. Accessed January 6, 2026. https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/ford-takes-19-5-billion-charge-to-write-down-ev-investments-333a9bc4?mod=Searchresults&pos=2&page=1
* * *
Ken Braun
As managing editor and director of content of CRC, Ken Braun edits Capital Research magazine. He also conducts investigative research and drafts profiles for InfluenceWatch.org.
* * *
Report link: https://capitalresearch.org/app/uploads/FINAL-PDF_CRC_EnemiesofEnergy.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/enemies-of-energy-electric-vehicles-and-emissions/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Enemies of Energy: Electric vehicles and emissions
So, after 17 years of taxpayer support, many EVs are literally coal-powered cars. While that's an ironic outcome, it is not a major one because nearly two decades of EV subsidies didn't lead to many EV buyers.
By Ken Braun
Editor's note: The following is an excerpt from the "Myths and Misconceptions" section of Enemies of Energy, a research report created for the Capital Research Center. The page for the full report is here: Enemies of Energy.
-
Another ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following excerpts of a report: * * * Enemies of Energy: Electric vehicles and emissions So, after 17 years of taxpayer support, many EVs are literally coal-powered cars. While that's an ironic outcome, it is not a major one because nearly two decades of EV subsidies didn't lead to many EV buyers. By Ken Braun Editor's note: The following is an excerpt from the "Myths and Misconceptions" section of Enemies of Energy, a research report created for the Capital Research Center. The page for the full report is here: Enemies of Energy. - Anothermajor recipient of federal subsidies has been the electric vehicle (EV) market. Just one of these, a $7,500 consumer tax credit for the purchase of EVs, was created in 2008 and lasted for the next 17 years until Congress and the Trump administration killed it off in 2025.[i]
The assumption promoted by politicians and anti-energy NGOs to justify these payoffs is that EVs produce no greenhouse gas emissions because rather than running on gasoline or diesel they use ... electricity.
But electricity is a mere carrier of energy, not a source. And according to the U.S. Department of Energy, 78 percent of American electricity is still generated with hydrocarbons and nuclear fuels.[ii]
Each electric vehicle charging up in America is more likely to be powered by coal, natural gas, or petroleum (60 percent of total electricity generation fuels) than it is to run on wind or solar (14 percent of total electricity fuels). Coal alone still accounts for 16 percent of total electricity production.[iii]
So, after 17 years of taxpayer support, many EVs are literally coal-powered cars.
While that's an ironic outcome, it is not a major one because nearly two decades of EV subsidies didn't lead to many EV buyers. The market share for American EV purchases did not break above 10 percent until the final year of the program--last year--and then only because the subsidy had been killed off, which led to the last holdout buyers cashing in before the subsidies expired.[iv]
Ford Motor Company is emblematic of the EV disaster. In December 2025, Ford announced it was shifting away from the EV market to focus on gasoline engines and gas-electric hybrids. According to a Wall Street Journal report, Ford had lost "$13 billion on its EV business since 2023" and was taking an additional write down of $19.5 billion, for a total EV red ink bath of $32.5 billion. The report noted smaller losses and similar pivots away from EVs by General Motors.[v]
Putting the Ford debacle in concrete terms, energy journalist Robert Bryce kept tabs in real-time on the EV deficits as a share of each EV sold. In Q2 of 2023, he reported $72,762 was lost for each EV Ford dealers moved out the door. (When the red ink exceeds the total price of most new vehicles, perhaps "sold" is a misleading term?) For Q3 of 2024, Bryce calculated the deficit was down to a mere $58,391 per EV. On and on it went, with quarterly losses always at or exceeding $40,000 per vehicle.[vi][vii]
In June 2022, Ford CEO Jim Farley boasted that he didn't need to advertise the F-150 Lightning EV pickup because the truck would sell itself. By December 2025, the Wall Street Journal was reporting that Ford would "stop making an EV version of its F-150 pickup truck, called the Lightning."[viii][ix]
* * *
Endnotes
[i] Schwab, Grant. "Marked by Success and Controversy, EV Tax Credit Ends After a 17-Year Run." The Detroit News. September 29, 2025. Accessed January 6, 2026. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2025/09/29/marked-by-success-controversy-ev-tax-credit-ends-after-a-17-year-run/86331734007/
[ii] "Electricity Explained." Energy Information Agency. U.S. Department of Energy. Accessed January 5, 2026. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/
[iii] "Electricity Explained." Energy Information Agency. U.S. Department of Energy. Accessed January 5, 2026. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/
[iv] Schwab, Grant. "Marked by Success and Controversy, EV Tax Credit Ends After a 17-Year Run." The Detroit News. September 29, 2025. Accessed January 6, 2026. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2025/09/29/marked-by-success-controversy-ev-tax-credit-ends-after-a-17-year-run/86331734007/
[v] Terlep, Sharon. "Ford Takes $19.5 Billion Hit in Detroit's Biggest EV Bust." Wall Street Journal. December 15, 2025. Accessed January 6, 2026. https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/ford-takes-19-5-billion-charge-to-write-down-ev-investments-333a9bc4?mod=Searchresults&pos=2&page=1
[vi] Bryce, Robert. "Unplugged: Ford Lost $72,762 For Every EV It Sold In Q2." Robert Bryce (Substack). July 27, 2023. Accessed January 6, 2026. https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/unplugged-ford-lost-72762-for-every
[vii] Bryce, Robert. "Ford Lost Another $1.2 Billion in 3Q On EVs." Robert Bryce (Substack). October 28, 2024. Accessed January 6, 2026. https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/ford-lost-another-12-billion-in-3q
[viii] "Ford's CEO Sees EVs Helping Carmaker Pare Its $3 Billion Ad Budget." Bloomberg. June 1, 2022. Accessed January 6, 2026. https://www.macheforum.com/site/threads/farley-ford-to-stop-traditional-advertising-for-mach-e-lightning-ev.18326/
[ix] Terlep, Sharon. "Ford Takes $19.5 Billion Hit in Detroit's Biggest EV Bust." Wall Street Journal. December 15, 2025. Accessed January 6, 2026. https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/ford-takes-19-5-billion-charge-to-write-down-ev-investments-333a9bc4?mod=Searchresults&pos=2&page=1
* * *
Ken Braun
As managing editor and director of content of CRC, Ken Braun edits Capital Research magazine. He also conducts investigative research and drafts profiles for InfluenceWatch.org.
* * *
Report link: https://capitalresearch.org/app/uploads/FINAL-PDF_CRC_EnemiesofEnergy.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/enemies-of-energy-electric-vehicles-and-emissions/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Critical Questions Q&A: How Do the Latest Black Sea Attacks Affect Global Food Security?
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following Critical Questions Q&A on Sept. 11, 2026, involving Director Caitlin Welsh, research associate Emma Curtis and non-resident senior adviser Joseph Glauber, all of the Global Food and Water Security Program:
* * *
How Do the Latest Black Sea Attacks Affect Global Food Security?
Attacks on agricultural infrastructure have been a defining feature of Russia's war in Ukraine since 2022, causing record-level impacts on global food and fertilizer markets. However, recent attacks on shipping and export infrastructure ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following Critical Questions Q&A on Sept. 11, 2026, involving Director Caitlin Welsh, research associate Emma Curtis and non-resident senior adviser Joseph Glauber, all of the Global Food and Water Security Program: * * * How Do the Latest Black Sea Attacks Affect Global Food Security? Attacks on agricultural infrastructure have been a defining feature of Russia's war in Ukraine since 2022, causing record-level impacts on global food and fertilizer markets. However, recent attacks on shipping and export infrastructurein the Black Sea and Sea of Azov represent a heretofore unseen escalation in agriculture-related attacks by each country. Russia's attacks on cargo ships and export infrastructure have largely suspended vessel traffic through Ukraine's Black Sea ports, previously responsible for approximately 90 percent of Ukraine's agricultural exports. Ukraine's attacks on major Russian ports in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov have damaged grain export infrastructure and grain-carrying ships, leading Russia to suspend exports from its highest-capacity grain export terminals. These mutual attacks have made a significant proportion of the world's wheat trade inaccessible to buyers and threaten global fertilizer trade--while reductions in traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and Panama Canal further complicate agriculture trade routes.
Q1: What is the nature of recent attacks?
A1: Since the start of its full-scale invasion in 2022, Russia has attacked Ukraine's grain and oilseed production, transportation, processing, and export infrastructure; obstructed access to Ukraine's Black Sea ports, including by attacking ships carrying Ukrainian grains, forcing Ukraine to secure alternative export routes like the Danube River, which subsequently became a target for Russian attacks; targeted and killed Ukrainian farmers, exporters, and agribusiness leaders; and stole and re-sold Ukrainian grains. Despite Russia's deliberate efforts to undermine Ukraine's agricultural economy, Ukraine has remained one of the world's top agricultural exporters, though export volumes remain below prewar levels. Most of the damage to Black Sea agricultural infrastructure has been inflicted by Russia on Ukraine, and until recently, Russia's production and export levels remained relatively unaffected by the war.
Recent attacks in the Black Sea and Sea of Azov have changed these dynamics. This summer, Russia has increased the intensity of attacks on grain-carrying ships in and near Ukraine's ports, and targeted all of Ukraine's means of grain transport, including by sea, river, and land. Concurrently, Ukraine has escalated attacks on Russia's major Black Sea ports--notably Novorossiysk, responsible for 40 percent of Russian grain exports. Ukraine's attacks there--part of a larger assault on Russia's energy and military infrastructure--included Russia's agricultural export infrastructure, including the first confirmed Ukrainian assaults on ships carrying Russian grain. As a result, traffic has significantly slowed through both Russia and Ukraine's major grain-exporting ports simultaneously.
Since June, Russia has attacked at least 57 cargo vessels in the Black Sea, including some carrying Ukrainian grains, according to Ukrainian officials. Russia has also intensified its drone campaign targeting Ukrainian railways, regularly struck the Danube River ports of Izmail and Reni, and has damaged agricultural production facilities and farmland near the front lines. Because of Russia's attacks on grain-carrying ships and Ukraine's export infrastructure, vessel traffic through Black Sea ports has largely halted since July 22, causing grain exports to drop 75 percent in the first two weeks of August compared to 2025 levels.
For its part, Ukraine intensified attacks on cargo vessels leaving Russian ports in July and August. Ukrainian forces attacked 76 vessels between July 6 and July 11, according to Ukrainian officials. In mid-July, Russia suspended exports through the Don-Azov Channel. The Sea of Azov handled approximately one-quarter of Russia's wheat exports. Russia's Azov Sea wheat exports were further undercut by a Ukrainian attack to a major grain export terminal at Russia's Taman port on July 29; Ukraine attacked a sunflower oil processing facility at Taman the following day. Ukraine's August 12 strike on Novorossiysk marked a turning point, halting operations at all three of the port's grain terminals. At time of writing, Russia's only operational port on the Black Sea is the secondary port of Tuapse. Ukraine's recent attacks have also demonstrated an expanded reach as drone assaults have now hit Russia's Baltic Sea ports--including Ust-Luga, a major port for Russian fertilizer exports, in early September--and the Caspian Sea, where Ukraine has struck multiple Russian vessels this year and where Iran accused Ukraine of attacking an Iranian commercial vessel in late July.
Q2: What are the impacts of recent attacks on Ukraine's and Russia's agricultural exports?
A2: The surge in attacks on export capacity coincides with each country's peak wheat export window. Winter wheat, the predominant type of wheat grown in Russia and Ukraine, is harvested in summer and exported in late summer and early fall. Ukraine's attacks, particularly on Russia's ports in the Sea of Azov and at Novorossiysk, have removed an estimated 70 percent of Russia's grain export capacity. Russia's recent attacks, which halted shipments from Odessa, took approximately 90 percent of Ukraine's grain shipments offline.
As a result, exports of wheat from Russia and Ukraine have fallen dramatically. In recent years, Russia has exported an average of 5 million tons of wheat in August; estimates of Russia's wheat exports in August 2026 range from 3.0 million metric tons to 1.5 million metric tons, representing as much as a 70 percent decrease in Russian wheat exports for the month. Analysts forecast Russia's July-September wheat export volumes at 5.6 million tons overall, a roughly 50 percent decrease from the 11.3 million tons Russia exported during this period last year. Ukraine's August grain exports are expected to be approximately one-third the level of what Ukraine exported in August 2025.
Q3: How are Ukraine and Russia adapting to the recent attacks in the short term, and how could the attacks affect Ukraine's and Russia's agriculture sectors in the long term?
A3: In the near term, Russia and Ukraine are seeking alternative export routes for their grains, but alternative routes are expensive and unable to handle the volumes afforded by the Black Sea and Sea of Azov ports. At time of writing, Russia is reportedly rerouting grain shipments to ports on the Baltic Sea, including Russian ports and ports of Baltic states. Grain shipments through Russia's Baltic Sea terminals, plus potential shipments through Estonia and Latvia, could approach 10 million metric tons--about a fifth of the more than 46 million metric tons of grain Russia exported through its Azov and Black Sea ports in the 2025-2026 season. To ease the impacts of high trading costs, Russia has also paused export duties on wheat, barley, and corn through the end of the year.
Ukraine, in turn, is seeking alternative transport by rail, road, and the Danube River. According to Ukraine's agriculture minister, alternative routes, once fully operational, could export only half the volume handled by Ukraine's disrupted Black Sea ports. The Danube River had become central to Ukraine's maritime grain exports following the termination of the Black Sea Grain Initiative (BSGI) in 2023, facilitating export of Ukraine's grains from Ukraine's Danube River ports to Romania's territorial waters and Black Sea ports. Today, extreme heat and low rainfall have dropped Danube River levels to historic lows, reducing cargo vessel capacity, increasing freight costs, and causing long queues of ships awaiting transit, with preference given to higher-priced cargo (e.g., fuel) over grain. Russia's mid-August attacks on Izmail, Ukraine's largest port on the Danube River, have further obstructed Ukraine's exports via the Danube. Today, export by rail is the primary alternative to maritime exports, according to Ukraine's agriculture minister. In response to disruptions to Ukraine's grain export capacity and impacts of drought on EU agricultural production, the European Union is urging member states to "assess rapidly" means to mitigate the adverse effects of these compounding pressures on global grain markets.
* * *
Figure 1: Ukraine Grain Exports
* * *
In the near term, export-route obstructions are driving up prices for grain buyers and reducing revenues for Russian and Ukraine grain sellers. Recent disruptions could cause up to $3 billion in losses for Ukraine's agriculture sector alone. Should trade impediments continue, lost revenues could affect future harvests. Accumulating inventories and a shortage of storage capacity would lead to a back up of grains on farms, reducing space to store future harvests, while farmers, receiving less revenue from current crops, would have less capital to invest in future planting and sowing campaigns.
Q4: How could recent attacks affect global agriculture markets and global food security?
A4: Russia, the world's top wheat exporter, and Ukraine, the world's fifth-largest wheat exporter, together account for approximately 27 percent of global wheat exports, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The recent attacks have caused benchmark wheat futures on the Chicago Board of Trade to reach their highest levels since 2023.
These disruptions are coinciding with a decline in global wheat production due to drought and other weather events, largely related to El Nino, across the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. According to the USDA, combined production of the world's top seven wheat exporters will decline 11 percent for the 2026/2027 marketing year compared to the previous year, and wheat exports will be down 7 percent in 2026/2027 compared to the previous year. This represents significant declines in production from some top producers, including the United States. In the United States, wheat production is expected to fall by 26 percent, representing the lowest wheat production levels since 1970-1971, and wheat exports are expected to decline by almost 15 percent. A combination of drought and high fertilizer prices are similarly reducing production in Canada and across EU countries. In the Southern hemisphere, drought and high fertilizer costs are expected to reduce exports from Australia, while Argentina's wheat exports are expected to decline in marketing year 2026/2027, despite potentially positive impacts of El Nino on Argentina's wheat production.
Together, decreased exports from Russia, Ukraine, and other top wheat exporters are driving up global wheat prices. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN Food Price Index estimated that world wheat prices were 15 percent higher in August 2026 than August 2025, though cereal prices together remain significantly lower than the peak reached in 2022. Sustained high wheat prices--and potential impacts on maize and oilseed exports--could push cereal prices higher. As in 2022, elevated global food prices would hit net-food-importing countries hardest, driving up prices of staple foods and reducing consumption of both staple foods and more nutritious (and more costly) foods at the same time.
Q5: What are the prospects for a cessation of attacks on agriculture infrastructure in the Black Sea and Sea of Azov?
A5: On August 13, Ukraine proposed to Russia, through a third party, that they both halt attacks on civilian targets in the Black Sea. Russia dismissed the offer the following day. According to Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, Russia wants to extend a ceasefire on ships carrying agricultural products to cover Russia's energy infrastructure, without offering to cease Russia's own attacks on Ukraine's energy system. Russia's counteroffer has been a nonstarter for Ukraine.
In 2022, the establishment of the BSGI, intended to facilitate the export of Ukrainian and Russian grains and fertilizers from the Black Sea, ultimately stemmed the spike in global grain and fertilizer prices. Today, neither Ukraine nor Russia is likely to return to a similar regime. The BSGI initially allowed Ukraine to resume grain exports, but the ship inspections required under the BSGI ultimately made it so that Russia could squeeze Ukraine's grain exports for political purposes. Following the termination of the BSGI and absent Russia's inspections, Ukraine's agricultural exports increased. For Russia, the deal was "one-sided," not facilitating exports of Russian food and fertilizers to the extent originally agreed.
According to Turkish officials, Turkey has drafted a plan for the safe passage of grain-carrying ships and is in contact with Russia and Ukraine about it. Absent a ceasefire, grain industry analysts fear that recent hostilities in the Black Sea could last as long as the Russia-Ukraine war itself, with continued, and expanding, impacts on global agriculture markets.
Q6: How is the Iran war worsening dynamics in the Black Sea and the global impacts of the crisis?
A6: The U.S.-Israeli war with Iran and continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz are influencing military tactics in the Black Sea and exacerbating the impacts of recent attacks on global agriculture markets. The ongoing struggle for control of the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran's continued threats to the safe passage of ships, has significantly slowed traffic through the Gulf waterway. This strategy was proven effective by the Houthi's threats to commercial shipping through the Red Sea in late 2023 and Russia's blockade of vessel traffic through Ukraine's Black Sea ports following the 2022 full-scale invasion. According to one UK-based research institute, Iran's ongoing threats to safe passage in the Strait of Hormuz may be normalizing the targeting of civilian vessels, potentially informing Russia's decision to accelerate attacks on civilian vessels that have led to the halt of maritime exports from Ukraine.
Destruction of energy infrastructure and delays in shipping have slowed the production and export of fertilizers from the Persian Gulf region, increasing global prices of fertilizers and fertilizer inputs. By April 2026, North American fertilizer prices had increased 30 percent compared to prewar, and have since eased. The spike in fertilizer prices at the onset of war in spring of 2026 led to some farmers planting fewer acres of fertilizer-intensive crops, including wheat. High fertilizer costs are one factor contributing to expectations of lower wheat export levels from some of the world's top producers, potentially compounding the impacts of ongoing Black Sea disruptions on global wheat markets.
Likewise, the concurrence of the Strait of Hormuz closure and Black Sea attacks could compound impacts on global fertilizer markets. Since 2022, Russia has relocated much of its fertilizer exports from its Black Sea ports to the Baltic Sea, but by March 2026, Ukraine demonstrated its ability to reach Russia's Baltic Sea ports, potentially threatening fertilizer exports from the region. Though 84 percent of Russia's mineral fertilizer exports are through the Baltic Sea, Russia's Black Sea ports of Novorossiysk and Taman remained important, and export of fertilizers from these ports has effectively halted since the recent escalation.
Since 2022, Ukraine's naval defenses have been critical to its ability to export grains. Starting in June 2023, Ukraine initiated attacks on Russia's Black Sea Fleet on the Crimean Peninsula. Successive strikes through that fall forced Russia to relocate its BSF to Novorossiysk, inhibiting Ukraine's ability to target Ukraine's maritime activity in the Western Black Sea and enabling Ukraine to secure grain export routes via its Odessa ports and through the Danube. Since Ukraine launched the Ukrainian Corridor in September 2023, following Russia's termination of the BSGI that July, Ukraine has exported approximately 100 million metric tons of grain through the route as of January 2026, allowing Ukraine to remain one of the world's top agricultural exporters.
Today, Ukraine's naval defense capabilities remain critical to Ukraine's maritime grain exports. Moving forward, diplomatic efforts to negotiate a ceasefire on civilian vessels and agricultural infrastructure in the Black Sea, coupled with efforts to bolster Ukraine's maritime self-defense, will prove essential to resuming agricultural trade from the vital waterway.
* * *
Caitlin Welsh is the director of the Global Food and Water Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Emma Curtis is a research associate with the Global Food and Water Security Program at CSIS. Joseph Glauber is a senior adviser (non-resident) with the Global Food and Water Security Program at CSIS.
The authors would like to thank Joely Virzi for her research support.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-do-latest-black-sea-attacks-affect-global-food-security
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
How Do the Latest Black Sea Attacks Affect Global Food Security?
Attacks on agricultural infrastructure have been a defining feature of Russia's war in Ukraine since 2022, causing record-level impacts on global food and fertilizer markets. However, recent attacks on shipping and export infrastructure ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following Critical Questions Q&A on Sept. 11, 2026, involving Director Caitlin Welsh, research associate Emma Curtis and non-resident senior adviser Joseph Glauber, all of the Global Food and Water Security Program: * * * How Do the Latest Black Sea Attacks Affect Global Food Security? Attacks on agricultural infrastructure have been a defining feature of Russia's war in Ukraine since 2022, causing record-level impacts on global food and fertilizer markets. However, recent attacks on shipping and export infrastructurein the Black Sea and Sea of Azov represent a heretofore unseen escalation in agriculture-related attacks by each country. Russia's attacks on cargo ships and export infrastructure have largely suspended vessel traffic through Ukraine's Black Sea ports, previously responsible for approximately 90 percent of Ukraine's agricultural exports. Ukraine's attacks on major Russian ports in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov have damaged grain export infrastructure and grain-carrying ships, leading Russia to suspend exports from its highest-capacity grain export terminals. These mutual attacks have made a significant proportion of the world's wheat trade inaccessible to buyers and threaten global fertilizer trade--while reductions in traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and Panama Canal further complicate agriculture trade routes.
Q1: What is the nature of recent attacks?
A1: Since the start of its full-scale invasion in 2022, Russia has attacked Ukraine's grain and oilseed production, transportation, processing, and export infrastructure; obstructed access to Ukraine's Black Sea ports, including by attacking ships carrying Ukrainian grains, forcing Ukraine to secure alternative export routes like the Danube River, which subsequently became a target for Russian attacks; targeted and killed Ukrainian farmers, exporters, and agribusiness leaders; and stole and re-sold Ukrainian grains. Despite Russia's deliberate efforts to undermine Ukraine's agricultural economy, Ukraine has remained one of the world's top agricultural exporters, though export volumes remain below prewar levels. Most of the damage to Black Sea agricultural infrastructure has been inflicted by Russia on Ukraine, and until recently, Russia's production and export levels remained relatively unaffected by the war.
Recent attacks in the Black Sea and Sea of Azov have changed these dynamics. This summer, Russia has increased the intensity of attacks on grain-carrying ships in and near Ukraine's ports, and targeted all of Ukraine's means of grain transport, including by sea, river, and land. Concurrently, Ukraine has escalated attacks on Russia's major Black Sea ports--notably Novorossiysk, responsible for 40 percent of Russian grain exports. Ukraine's attacks there--part of a larger assault on Russia's energy and military infrastructure--included Russia's agricultural export infrastructure, including the first confirmed Ukrainian assaults on ships carrying Russian grain. As a result, traffic has significantly slowed through both Russia and Ukraine's major grain-exporting ports simultaneously.
Since June, Russia has attacked at least 57 cargo vessels in the Black Sea, including some carrying Ukrainian grains, according to Ukrainian officials. Russia has also intensified its drone campaign targeting Ukrainian railways, regularly struck the Danube River ports of Izmail and Reni, and has damaged agricultural production facilities and farmland near the front lines. Because of Russia's attacks on grain-carrying ships and Ukraine's export infrastructure, vessel traffic through Black Sea ports has largely halted since July 22, causing grain exports to drop 75 percent in the first two weeks of August compared to 2025 levels.
For its part, Ukraine intensified attacks on cargo vessels leaving Russian ports in July and August. Ukrainian forces attacked 76 vessels between July 6 and July 11, according to Ukrainian officials. In mid-July, Russia suspended exports through the Don-Azov Channel. The Sea of Azov handled approximately one-quarter of Russia's wheat exports. Russia's Azov Sea wheat exports were further undercut by a Ukrainian attack to a major grain export terminal at Russia's Taman port on July 29; Ukraine attacked a sunflower oil processing facility at Taman the following day. Ukraine's August 12 strike on Novorossiysk marked a turning point, halting operations at all three of the port's grain terminals. At time of writing, Russia's only operational port on the Black Sea is the secondary port of Tuapse. Ukraine's recent attacks have also demonstrated an expanded reach as drone assaults have now hit Russia's Baltic Sea ports--including Ust-Luga, a major port for Russian fertilizer exports, in early September--and the Caspian Sea, where Ukraine has struck multiple Russian vessels this year and where Iran accused Ukraine of attacking an Iranian commercial vessel in late July.
Q2: What are the impacts of recent attacks on Ukraine's and Russia's agricultural exports?
A2: The surge in attacks on export capacity coincides with each country's peak wheat export window. Winter wheat, the predominant type of wheat grown in Russia and Ukraine, is harvested in summer and exported in late summer and early fall. Ukraine's attacks, particularly on Russia's ports in the Sea of Azov and at Novorossiysk, have removed an estimated 70 percent of Russia's grain export capacity. Russia's recent attacks, which halted shipments from Odessa, took approximately 90 percent of Ukraine's grain shipments offline.
As a result, exports of wheat from Russia and Ukraine have fallen dramatically. In recent years, Russia has exported an average of 5 million tons of wheat in August; estimates of Russia's wheat exports in August 2026 range from 3.0 million metric tons to 1.5 million metric tons, representing as much as a 70 percent decrease in Russian wheat exports for the month. Analysts forecast Russia's July-September wheat export volumes at 5.6 million tons overall, a roughly 50 percent decrease from the 11.3 million tons Russia exported during this period last year. Ukraine's August grain exports are expected to be approximately one-third the level of what Ukraine exported in August 2025.
Q3: How are Ukraine and Russia adapting to the recent attacks in the short term, and how could the attacks affect Ukraine's and Russia's agriculture sectors in the long term?
A3: In the near term, Russia and Ukraine are seeking alternative export routes for their grains, but alternative routes are expensive and unable to handle the volumes afforded by the Black Sea and Sea of Azov ports. At time of writing, Russia is reportedly rerouting grain shipments to ports on the Baltic Sea, including Russian ports and ports of Baltic states. Grain shipments through Russia's Baltic Sea terminals, plus potential shipments through Estonia and Latvia, could approach 10 million metric tons--about a fifth of the more than 46 million metric tons of grain Russia exported through its Azov and Black Sea ports in the 2025-2026 season. To ease the impacts of high trading costs, Russia has also paused export duties on wheat, barley, and corn through the end of the year.
Ukraine, in turn, is seeking alternative transport by rail, road, and the Danube River. According to Ukraine's agriculture minister, alternative routes, once fully operational, could export only half the volume handled by Ukraine's disrupted Black Sea ports. The Danube River had become central to Ukraine's maritime grain exports following the termination of the Black Sea Grain Initiative (BSGI) in 2023, facilitating export of Ukraine's grains from Ukraine's Danube River ports to Romania's territorial waters and Black Sea ports. Today, extreme heat and low rainfall have dropped Danube River levels to historic lows, reducing cargo vessel capacity, increasing freight costs, and causing long queues of ships awaiting transit, with preference given to higher-priced cargo (e.g., fuel) over grain. Russia's mid-August attacks on Izmail, Ukraine's largest port on the Danube River, have further obstructed Ukraine's exports via the Danube. Today, export by rail is the primary alternative to maritime exports, according to Ukraine's agriculture minister. In response to disruptions to Ukraine's grain export capacity and impacts of drought on EU agricultural production, the European Union is urging member states to "assess rapidly" means to mitigate the adverse effects of these compounding pressures on global grain markets.
* * *
Figure 1: Ukraine Grain Exports
* * *
In the near term, export-route obstructions are driving up prices for grain buyers and reducing revenues for Russian and Ukraine grain sellers. Recent disruptions could cause up to $3 billion in losses for Ukraine's agriculture sector alone. Should trade impediments continue, lost revenues could affect future harvests. Accumulating inventories and a shortage of storage capacity would lead to a back up of grains on farms, reducing space to store future harvests, while farmers, receiving less revenue from current crops, would have less capital to invest in future planting and sowing campaigns.
Q4: How could recent attacks affect global agriculture markets and global food security?
A4: Russia, the world's top wheat exporter, and Ukraine, the world's fifth-largest wheat exporter, together account for approximately 27 percent of global wheat exports, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The recent attacks have caused benchmark wheat futures on the Chicago Board of Trade to reach their highest levels since 2023.
These disruptions are coinciding with a decline in global wheat production due to drought and other weather events, largely related to El Nino, across the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. According to the USDA, combined production of the world's top seven wheat exporters will decline 11 percent for the 2026/2027 marketing year compared to the previous year, and wheat exports will be down 7 percent in 2026/2027 compared to the previous year. This represents significant declines in production from some top producers, including the United States. In the United States, wheat production is expected to fall by 26 percent, representing the lowest wheat production levels since 1970-1971, and wheat exports are expected to decline by almost 15 percent. A combination of drought and high fertilizer prices are similarly reducing production in Canada and across EU countries. In the Southern hemisphere, drought and high fertilizer costs are expected to reduce exports from Australia, while Argentina's wheat exports are expected to decline in marketing year 2026/2027, despite potentially positive impacts of El Nino on Argentina's wheat production.
Together, decreased exports from Russia, Ukraine, and other top wheat exporters are driving up global wheat prices. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN Food Price Index estimated that world wheat prices were 15 percent higher in August 2026 than August 2025, though cereal prices together remain significantly lower than the peak reached in 2022. Sustained high wheat prices--and potential impacts on maize and oilseed exports--could push cereal prices higher. As in 2022, elevated global food prices would hit net-food-importing countries hardest, driving up prices of staple foods and reducing consumption of both staple foods and more nutritious (and more costly) foods at the same time.
Q5: What are the prospects for a cessation of attacks on agriculture infrastructure in the Black Sea and Sea of Azov?
A5: On August 13, Ukraine proposed to Russia, through a third party, that they both halt attacks on civilian targets in the Black Sea. Russia dismissed the offer the following day. According to Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, Russia wants to extend a ceasefire on ships carrying agricultural products to cover Russia's energy infrastructure, without offering to cease Russia's own attacks on Ukraine's energy system. Russia's counteroffer has been a nonstarter for Ukraine.
In 2022, the establishment of the BSGI, intended to facilitate the export of Ukrainian and Russian grains and fertilizers from the Black Sea, ultimately stemmed the spike in global grain and fertilizer prices. Today, neither Ukraine nor Russia is likely to return to a similar regime. The BSGI initially allowed Ukraine to resume grain exports, but the ship inspections required under the BSGI ultimately made it so that Russia could squeeze Ukraine's grain exports for political purposes. Following the termination of the BSGI and absent Russia's inspections, Ukraine's agricultural exports increased. For Russia, the deal was "one-sided," not facilitating exports of Russian food and fertilizers to the extent originally agreed.
According to Turkish officials, Turkey has drafted a plan for the safe passage of grain-carrying ships and is in contact with Russia and Ukraine about it. Absent a ceasefire, grain industry analysts fear that recent hostilities in the Black Sea could last as long as the Russia-Ukraine war itself, with continued, and expanding, impacts on global agriculture markets.
Q6: How is the Iran war worsening dynamics in the Black Sea and the global impacts of the crisis?
A6: The U.S.-Israeli war with Iran and continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz are influencing military tactics in the Black Sea and exacerbating the impacts of recent attacks on global agriculture markets. The ongoing struggle for control of the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran's continued threats to the safe passage of ships, has significantly slowed traffic through the Gulf waterway. This strategy was proven effective by the Houthi's threats to commercial shipping through the Red Sea in late 2023 and Russia's blockade of vessel traffic through Ukraine's Black Sea ports following the 2022 full-scale invasion. According to one UK-based research institute, Iran's ongoing threats to safe passage in the Strait of Hormuz may be normalizing the targeting of civilian vessels, potentially informing Russia's decision to accelerate attacks on civilian vessels that have led to the halt of maritime exports from Ukraine.
Destruction of energy infrastructure and delays in shipping have slowed the production and export of fertilizers from the Persian Gulf region, increasing global prices of fertilizers and fertilizer inputs. By April 2026, North American fertilizer prices had increased 30 percent compared to prewar, and have since eased. The spike in fertilizer prices at the onset of war in spring of 2026 led to some farmers planting fewer acres of fertilizer-intensive crops, including wheat. High fertilizer costs are one factor contributing to expectations of lower wheat export levels from some of the world's top producers, potentially compounding the impacts of ongoing Black Sea disruptions on global wheat markets.
Likewise, the concurrence of the Strait of Hormuz closure and Black Sea attacks could compound impacts on global fertilizer markets. Since 2022, Russia has relocated much of its fertilizer exports from its Black Sea ports to the Baltic Sea, but by March 2026, Ukraine demonstrated its ability to reach Russia's Baltic Sea ports, potentially threatening fertilizer exports from the region. Though 84 percent of Russia's mineral fertilizer exports are through the Baltic Sea, Russia's Black Sea ports of Novorossiysk and Taman remained important, and export of fertilizers from these ports has effectively halted since the recent escalation.
Since 2022, Ukraine's naval defenses have been critical to its ability to export grains. Starting in June 2023, Ukraine initiated attacks on Russia's Black Sea Fleet on the Crimean Peninsula. Successive strikes through that fall forced Russia to relocate its BSF to Novorossiysk, inhibiting Ukraine's ability to target Ukraine's maritime activity in the Western Black Sea and enabling Ukraine to secure grain export routes via its Odessa ports and through the Danube. Since Ukraine launched the Ukrainian Corridor in September 2023, following Russia's termination of the BSGI that July, Ukraine has exported approximately 100 million metric tons of grain through the route as of January 2026, allowing Ukraine to remain one of the world's top agricultural exporters.
Today, Ukraine's naval defense capabilities remain critical to Ukraine's maritime grain exports. Moving forward, diplomatic efforts to negotiate a ceasefire on civilian vessels and agricultural infrastructure in the Black Sea, coupled with efforts to bolster Ukraine's maritime self-defense, will prove essential to resuming agricultural trade from the vital waterway.
* * *
Caitlin Welsh is the director of the Global Food and Water Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Emma Curtis is a research associate with the Global Food and Water Security Program at CSIS. Joseph Glauber is a senior adviser (non-resident) with the Global Food and Water Security Program at CSIS.
The authors would like to thank Joely Virzi for her research support.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-do-latest-black-sea-attacks-affect-global-food-security
[Category: ThinkTank]
America First Policy Institute Issues Commentary: New Jersey's Sanctuary State Repeats a Deadly Pre-9/11 Mistake
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following commentary:
* * *
New Jersey's Sanctuary State Repeats a Deadly Pre-9/11 Mistake
Matthew T. Rooney Michael John Donohue September 11, 2026
It has been a quarter of a century since the Twin Towers fell and 749 New Jerseyans were murdered by bloodthirsty terrorists. And as a nation, we have been asking ourselves to remember the lessons of 9/11. We must never forget.
Unfortunately, when it comes to immigration, it turns out that the lessons of 9/11 have not been forgotten. Rather, they have callously been set aside ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following commentary: * * * New Jersey's Sanctuary State Repeats a Deadly Pre-9/11 Mistake Matthew T. Rooney Michael John Donohue September 11, 2026 It has been a quarter of a century since the Twin Towers fell and 749 New Jerseyans were murdered by bloodthirsty terrorists. And as a nation, we have been asking ourselves to remember the lessons of 9/11. We must never forget. Unfortunately, when it comes to immigration, it turns out that the lessons of 9/11 have not been forgotten. Rather, they have callously been set asideby some leaders who would rather gain the support of the far left of the political spectrum--a political base that supports open borders, the obstruction of immigration enforcement, and defunding the police. This, sadly, has certainly been the outcome in New Jersey.
Among the most important lessons we learned from the terrorist attacks on 9/11 is that cooperation between local and federal law enforcement agents is critical to identifying and stopping would-be terrorists. This is especially so when it comes to immigration. The 9/11 Commission, chaired by former New Jersey Governor Tom Kean, specifically cited an intelligence culture in which "the information flow withered" as a primary reason why authorities failed to thwart the largest terror attack in American history. Government-imposed restrictions--notably the infamous 1995 memo issued by Clinton-era Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick--played a decisive and ultimately deadly role in the lead-up to disaster.
The history is chilling. In August 2001, the FBI was actively hunting future 9/11 hijacker Khalid al-Mihdhar, an al-Qaeda operative known to have entered the United States. Incredibly, confusion surrounding the government's intelligence-law enforcement "wall" kept experienced criminal agents from fully joining the hunt. One furious FBI agent practically predicted the disaster on August 29, 2001, mere days before the attacks: "someday someone will die and, wall or not, the public will not understand why we were not more effective."
Thirteen days later, al-Mihdhar was among the monsters who hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 and murdered 184 innocent souls at the Pentagon. The 9/11 Commission later concluded that officials were confused about what they could share. Seasoned criminal investigators were consequently "excluded from the search" precisely when their expert assistance could have helped avert thousands of deaths and years of ensuing conflict.
In New Jersey, however, these lessons were not important enough to outweigh the bigger policy objective: open borders. Seventeen years after the September 11th attacks, New Jersey became a "sanctuary state." The 2018 Attorney General directive barred cooperation with ICE, but its impact went beyond undermining immigration enforcement, compromising our voter rolls, and exacerbating housing costs; it also erected an information wall between New Jersey law enforcement and federal authorities. The state then doubled down on this madness by signing legislation codifying sanctuary statehood earlier this year.
Indeed, twenty-five years after 9/11, New Jersey policymakers have deliberately erected new barriers to cooperation with federal immigration agents, gambling that history won't repeat itself. That's not enlightened policymaking. It's tempting fate.
How long before a non-citizen with designs as grand and evil as the 9/11 hijackers is released from a New Jersey jail, moves unnoticed by federal authorities, and kills more of our citizens? It is only a matter of time with the reckless sanctuary statehood "information wall" in place.
Thankfully, the inevitable is avoidable if Trenton snaps out of its woke daydream, prioritizes public safety and common sense, and ends sanctuary statehood before it's too late.
* * *
Matthew T. Rooney, Executive Director, America First New Jersey
Michael John Donohue, Chair of AFPI-New Jersey
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/new-jerseys-sanctuary-state-repeats-a-deadly-pre-9-11-mistake
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
New Jersey's Sanctuary State Repeats a Deadly Pre-9/11 Mistake
Matthew T. Rooney Michael John Donohue September 11, 2026
It has been a quarter of a century since the Twin Towers fell and 749 New Jerseyans were murdered by bloodthirsty terrorists. And as a nation, we have been asking ourselves to remember the lessons of 9/11. We must never forget.
Unfortunately, when it comes to immigration, it turns out that the lessons of 9/11 have not been forgotten. Rather, they have callously been set aside ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following commentary: * * * New Jersey's Sanctuary State Repeats a Deadly Pre-9/11 Mistake Matthew T. Rooney Michael John Donohue September 11, 2026 It has been a quarter of a century since the Twin Towers fell and 749 New Jerseyans were murdered by bloodthirsty terrorists. And as a nation, we have been asking ourselves to remember the lessons of 9/11. We must never forget. Unfortunately, when it comes to immigration, it turns out that the lessons of 9/11 have not been forgotten. Rather, they have callously been set asideby some leaders who would rather gain the support of the far left of the political spectrum--a political base that supports open borders, the obstruction of immigration enforcement, and defunding the police. This, sadly, has certainly been the outcome in New Jersey.
Among the most important lessons we learned from the terrorist attacks on 9/11 is that cooperation between local and federal law enforcement agents is critical to identifying and stopping would-be terrorists. This is especially so when it comes to immigration. The 9/11 Commission, chaired by former New Jersey Governor Tom Kean, specifically cited an intelligence culture in which "the information flow withered" as a primary reason why authorities failed to thwart the largest terror attack in American history. Government-imposed restrictions--notably the infamous 1995 memo issued by Clinton-era Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick--played a decisive and ultimately deadly role in the lead-up to disaster.
The history is chilling. In August 2001, the FBI was actively hunting future 9/11 hijacker Khalid al-Mihdhar, an al-Qaeda operative known to have entered the United States. Incredibly, confusion surrounding the government's intelligence-law enforcement "wall" kept experienced criminal agents from fully joining the hunt. One furious FBI agent practically predicted the disaster on August 29, 2001, mere days before the attacks: "someday someone will die and, wall or not, the public will not understand why we were not more effective."
Thirteen days later, al-Mihdhar was among the monsters who hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 and murdered 184 innocent souls at the Pentagon. The 9/11 Commission later concluded that officials were confused about what they could share. Seasoned criminal investigators were consequently "excluded from the search" precisely when their expert assistance could have helped avert thousands of deaths and years of ensuing conflict.
In New Jersey, however, these lessons were not important enough to outweigh the bigger policy objective: open borders. Seventeen years after the September 11th attacks, New Jersey became a "sanctuary state." The 2018 Attorney General directive barred cooperation with ICE, but its impact went beyond undermining immigration enforcement, compromising our voter rolls, and exacerbating housing costs; it also erected an information wall between New Jersey law enforcement and federal authorities. The state then doubled down on this madness by signing legislation codifying sanctuary statehood earlier this year.
Indeed, twenty-five years after 9/11, New Jersey policymakers have deliberately erected new barriers to cooperation with federal immigration agents, gambling that history won't repeat itself. That's not enlightened policymaking. It's tempting fate.
How long before a non-citizen with designs as grand and evil as the 9/11 hijackers is released from a New Jersey jail, moves unnoticed by federal authorities, and kills more of our citizens? It is only a matter of time with the reckless sanctuary statehood "information wall" in place.
Thankfully, the inevitable is avoidable if Trenton snaps out of its woke daydream, prioritizes public safety and common sense, and ends sanctuary statehood before it's too late.
* * *
Matthew T. Rooney, Executive Director, America First New Jersey
Michael John Donohue, Chair of AFPI-New Jersey
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/new-jerseys-sanctuary-state-repeats-a-deadly-pre-9-11-mistake
[Category: ThinkTank]
45 Organizations Urge House Democratic Leadership to Call a Vote on Cuba War Powers Resolution
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 (TNSida) -- The Center for Economic and Policy Research issued the following news release:
* * *
45 Organizations Urge House Democratic Leadership to Call a Vote on Cuba War Powers Resolution
WASHINGTON, DC -- A coalition of 45 faith, peace, labor, health, and political organizations is calling on House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and committee Ranking Members Gregory Meeks and Jim McGovern to immediately announce plans to call a vote on Rep. Nydia Velazquez's Cuba War Powers Resolution (H.Con.Res. 106). In a letter sent this week, the groups call on the House to vote ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 (TNSida) -- The Center for Economic and Policy Research issued the following news release: * * * 45 Organizations Urge House Democratic Leadership to Call a Vote on Cuba War Powers Resolution WASHINGTON, DC -- A coalition of 45 faith, peace, labor, health, and political organizations is calling on House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and committee Ranking Members Gregory Meeks and Jim McGovern to immediately announce plans to call a vote on Rep. Nydia Velazquez's Cuba War Powers Resolution (H.Con.Res. 106). In a letter sent this week, the groups call on the House to voteto end the de facto US oil blockade on Cuba, which they argue amounts to hostilities that Congress has not authorized.
"Cuba is suffering through a man-made economic and humanitarian catastrophe, caused in significant part by deliberate policy choices of the United States," the organizations wrote.
The privileged resolution -- which can be called for a vote without Speaker Johnson's approval -- directs the president to remove US Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Cuba absent congressional authorization. The signatories, who include the American Friends Service Committee, the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Church World Service, Demand Progress, Just Foreign Policy, Indivisible, the Latin America Working Group, Pax Christi USA, Peace Action, RootsAction, United Church of Christ, Win Without War, and dozens of others, argue that the de facto oil blockade in place since January 2026 meets the definition of hostilities under the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
The letter describes a humanitarian emergency on the island that grows worse by the day. Already, six nationwide power grid collapses have occurred in the past year, leaving more than nine million people without power for periods lasting more than 20 hours, and with transportation stranded, inadequate water and food, and the health system forced to ration care. Cuba's infant mortality rate has increased by 148 percent under sanctions imposed by Trump, meaning 1,800 babies have died since 2018 who otherwise would have lived.
On August 6, a panel of UN experts warned that the humanitarian fallout of the sanctions escalation is becoming a full-blown crisis, threatening Cubans' rights to health, food, development, and to life itself.
The letter follows a Senate vote on April 28 to end US hostilities against Cuba -- sponsored by Senators Tim Kaine (D-VA), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), and Adam Schiff (D-CA) -- which was defeated on a procedural motion in a 51-to-47 vote, despite the support of Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Rand Paul (R-KY). The letter notes that those 47 senators voted to affirm that this blockade, imposed without a single shot fired, nevertheless constitutes an act of hostility under the War Powers Act. The letter deems this vote to be "one of the most important stands Congress has taken against U.S. economic sanctions toward Cuba in over six decades," and calls on the House to "take a similarly forceful action at this crucial moment."
The letter notes that under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, "the President may not introduce U.S. forces into hostilities, or situations where hostilities are imminent, without congressional authorization," stating that "a de facto fuel blockade enforced by military assets meets the definition of hostilities." It cites the UN Charter, which treats a blockade as a use of armed force, and the UN General Assembly's official "Definition of Aggression," which also identifies a blockade as an act of aggression. The signatories observe finally that the "deliberate deprivation of fuel to a civilian population also violates the 4th Geneva Convention's prohibition on collective punishment of civilians, and is therefore a war crime under this treaty, which the United States, along with all other UN member countries, has ratified."
The signatories call for urgent action, concluding that this "moment calls for decisive leadership that enables our communities to engage in the political process and try to shape the outcomes of policies being waged in our name."
* * *
INFODOC: https://cepr.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/CSO_Cuba_House_WPR_letter_FINAL_090926.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://cepr.net/newsroom/45-organizations-urge-house-democratic-leadership-to-call-a-vote-on-cuba-war-powers-resolution/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
45 Organizations Urge House Democratic Leadership to Call a Vote on Cuba War Powers Resolution
WASHINGTON, DC -- A coalition of 45 faith, peace, labor, health, and political organizations is calling on House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and committee Ranking Members Gregory Meeks and Jim McGovern to immediately announce plans to call a vote on Rep. Nydia Velazquez's Cuba War Powers Resolution (H.Con.Res. 106). In a letter sent this week, the groups call on the House to vote ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 (TNSida) -- The Center for Economic and Policy Research issued the following news release: * * * 45 Organizations Urge House Democratic Leadership to Call a Vote on Cuba War Powers Resolution WASHINGTON, DC -- A coalition of 45 faith, peace, labor, health, and political organizations is calling on House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and committee Ranking Members Gregory Meeks and Jim McGovern to immediately announce plans to call a vote on Rep. Nydia Velazquez's Cuba War Powers Resolution (H.Con.Res. 106). In a letter sent this week, the groups call on the House to voteto end the de facto US oil blockade on Cuba, which they argue amounts to hostilities that Congress has not authorized.
"Cuba is suffering through a man-made economic and humanitarian catastrophe, caused in significant part by deliberate policy choices of the United States," the organizations wrote.
The privileged resolution -- which can be called for a vote without Speaker Johnson's approval -- directs the president to remove US Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Cuba absent congressional authorization. The signatories, who include the American Friends Service Committee, the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Church World Service, Demand Progress, Just Foreign Policy, Indivisible, the Latin America Working Group, Pax Christi USA, Peace Action, RootsAction, United Church of Christ, Win Without War, and dozens of others, argue that the de facto oil blockade in place since January 2026 meets the definition of hostilities under the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
The letter describes a humanitarian emergency on the island that grows worse by the day. Already, six nationwide power grid collapses have occurred in the past year, leaving more than nine million people without power for periods lasting more than 20 hours, and with transportation stranded, inadequate water and food, and the health system forced to ration care. Cuba's infant mortality rate has increased by 148 percent under sanctions imposed by Trump, meaning 1,800 babies have died since 2018 who otherwise would have lived.
On August 6, a panel of UN experts warned that the humanitarian fallout of the sanctions escalation is becoming a full-blown crisis, threatening Cubans' rights to health, food, development, and to life itself.
The letter follows a Senate vote on April 28 to end US hostilities against Cuba -- sponsored by Senators Tim Kaine (D-VA), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), and Adam Schiff (D-CA) -- which was defeated on a procedural motion in a 51-to-47 vote, despite the support of Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Rand Paul (R-KY). The letter notes that those 47 senators voted to affirm that this blockade, imposed without a single shot fired, nevertheless constitutes an act of hostility under the War Powers Act. The letter deems this vote to be "one of the most important stands Congress has taken against U.S. economic sanctions toward Cuba in over six decades," and calls on the House to "take a similarly forceful action at this crucial moment."
The letter notes that under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, "the President may not introduce U.S. forces into hostilities, or situations where hostilities are imminent, without congressional authorization," stating that "a de facto fuel blockade enforced by military assets meets the definition of hostilities." It cites the UN Charter, which treats a blockade as a use of armed force, and the UN General Assembly's official "Definition of Aggression," which also identifies a blockade as an act of aggression. The signatories observe finally that the "deliberate deprivation of fuel to a civilian population also violates the 4th Geneva Convention's prohibition on collective punishment of civilians, and is therefore a war crime under this treaty, which the United States, along with all other UN member countries, has ratified."
The signatories call for urgent action, concluding that this "moment calls for decisive leadership that enables our communities to engage in the political process and try to shape the outcomes of policies being waged in our name."
* * *
INFODOC: https://cepr.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/CSO_Cuba_House_WPR_letter_FINAL_090926.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://cepr.net/newsroom/45-organizations-urge-house-democratic-leadership-to-call-a-vote-on-cuba-war-powers-resolution/
[Category: ThinkTank]