Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Jamestown Foundation Issues Commentary: Turkiye and Armenia Initiate Official Bilateral Trade
WASHINGTON, May 23 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on May 22, 2026, by Mamie Powers, managing editor of Eurasia Daily Monitor:
* * *
Turkiye and Armenia Initiate Official Bilateral Trade
Executive Summary:
* Turkiye announced that preparations for official bilateral trade with Armenia were completed on May 11. Goods no longer need to be reregistered in a third country before reaching their final destination when moving between the two countries.
* Armenia and Turkiye are slowly advancing their normalization, and initiating official bilateral trade is a major milestone.
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 23 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on May 22, 2026, by Mamie Powers, managing editor of Eurasia Daily Monitor:
* * *
Turkiye and Armenia Initiate Official Bilateral Trade
Executive Summary:
* Turkiye announced that preparations for official bilateral trade with Armenia were completed on May 11. Goods no longer need to be reregistered in a third country before reaching their final destination when moving between the two countries.
* Armenia and Turkiye are slowly advancing their normalization, and initiating official bilateral trade is a major milestone.Friendlier economic relations, especially in trade and transit, are an important part of this process.
* The normalization process between Armenia and Turkiye is highly contingent on the Armenia-Azerbaijan relationship. Azerbaijani and Turkish officials have stated that Turkiye's land borders with Armenia could be opened following Armenia's June 7 parliamentary elections.
The Turkish Foreign Ministry announced that preparations for initiating official bilateral trade between Turkiye and Armenia were completed as of May 11. Before this, bilateral trade of goods between Turkiye and Armenia was not possible without the goods being reregistered through a third country. This means that the final destination or origin of goods going from Turkiye to a third country and then to Armenia, or coming from Armenia using the same route, does not need to be reregistered in the third country, but can be written as "Armenia/Turkiye" (Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs; OC-Media, May 13). Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan explained to reporters on May 12 that, under previous regulations, Turkiye did not include Armenia on the list of destination countries, but now Turkiye is allowing Armenia to be listed directly as the country of destination on export documents (Armenpress, May 12). Armenian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Ani Badalyan wrote that Armenia "welcome[s] Turkiye's decision to lift the bans on bilateral trade with Armenia." She emphasized, "This is an important step towards the development of full-fledged and normal relations between the two countries" (X/@ArmSpoxMFA, May 13). A week before the announcement, on May 4, Pashinyan and Turkish Vice President Cevdet Yilmaz signed a memorandum of understanding in Yerevan to restore the Ani Bridge, which lies on the Armenia-Turkiye border, and discussed potential cooperation in transport, customs, energy, and digital infrastructure (Anadolu Ajansi, May 4).
Both sides are still working on the processes necessary to reopen border crossings between the two countries. Ruben Rubinyan, the Vice Speaker of the Armenian Parliament and Special Representative for Normalization with Turkiye, stated that future steps could include opening the Gyumri-Kars railway (Hurriyet Daily News; Armenpress, May 13). The European External Action Service (EEAS) said in a press release that this development could increase trade and economic opportunities in the region and benefit the entire South Caucasus and the European Union (EEAS, May 13). Armenia and Turkiye are slowly advancing their normalization process, and economic progress, especially in trade and transit, is a major aspect of this.
Relations between Turkiye and Armenia have long been strained. The border between Armenia and Turkiye is not fully open, and diplomatic relations between the two countries have not been established due to Armenia's territorial claims against Turkiye following the Soviet Union's collapse (see EDM, November 2, 2022). Turkiye officially closed the Turkish-Armenian border in 1993, during the First Nagorno-Karabakh War between Armenia and Azerbaijan, in which Turkiye supported Azerbaijan. In 2022, however, the Turkiye-Armenia border was opened for third-country citizens "visiting Turkiye and Armenia respectively," and Yerevan and Ankara agreed to begin direct air cargo trade between the two countries (Anadolu Ajansi, July 1, 2022; see EDM, November 2, 2022).
Over the past few years, Yerevan and Ankara have taken steps toward normalization. Both sides have agreed to the goal of developing a relationship "without preconditions" (Government of Armenia, August 2021; see EDM, January 24, 2022). In December 2021, Ankara and Yerevan agreed to appoint special representatives for the normalization process, who have held six meetings (Anadolu Ajansi, December 14, 2021; Armenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, last updated April 15). Yerevan has stated that it has been waiting for Ankara to make the first move in advancing their normalization (CNN Turk, April 17). On May 19, Turkish Member of Parliament Omer Faruk Gergerlioglu stated in an interview with Ermeni Haber Ajansi that Turkiye seeks to maintain the upper hand and control over the situation with Armenia while also viewing the issue from an Azerbaijan-centric perspective (Ermeni Haber Ajansi, May 19).
The normalization process between Armenia and Turkiye is highly contingent on the Armenia-Azerbaijan relationship (see EDM, April 10, May 14, September 30, 2009, April 5, November 2, 2022). One of the largest sticking points in Armenia and Turkiye's relationship today is the ongoing peace process between Armenia and Azerbaijan following the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War in 2020 and Azerbaijan's 2023 offensive to fully gain control of Karabakh (see EDM, November 12, 30, 2020, October 2, 2023, May 6, 2024). Turkiye and Azerbaijan are often referred to as one nation, two states. This means that much of Turkiye's stance on Armenia depends on Armenia's relationship with Azerbaijan (Ermeni Haber Ajansi, May 19).
The past year has seen significant progress in the peace process between Baku and Yerevan. The most notable development occurred during Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev's August 2025 meeting in Washington, which led to an agreement for the development of the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP), a corridor that will connect Azerbaijan to its Nakhchivan exclave through Armenia's Syunik province (see EDM, August 12, September 8, October 15, 2025). The TRIPP would enable Azerbaijan to access Nakhchivan and, by extension, Turkiye more efficiently and become a core component of the Middle Corridor (also known as the Trans-Caspian International Trade Route, or TITR) connecting the South Caucasus to Europe (see EDM, September 24, 2025). The successful implementation of TRIPP and the increase in trade through Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkiye that could come from it are dependent on the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process.
On May 18, Azerbaijani Ambassador to Turkiye Rashad Mammadov stated in an interview with the Turkish news outlet Cumhuriyet that Azerbaijan is pursuing the Armenia-Turkiye normalization process in parallel with the Armenia-Azerbaijan normalization process. He claimed that the Armenia-Turkiye and Armenia-Azerbaijan land borders could be opened after Armenia's June 7 parliamentary elections and constitutional referendum, in which Azerbaijan hopes Armenians will vote to reform the Armenian Constitution to remove what Baku states are "territorial claims" to Azerbaijan (see EDM, June 25, 2024, August 12, 2025; Cumhuriyet, May 18). The beginning of bilateral trade between Armenia and Turkiye is a significant step forward in their normalization process and brings additional economic opportunities for both countries. Developing transit routes through the South Caucasus to Europe, including TRIPP and the Middle Corridor, provides greater impetus to advance Turkiye and Armenia's economic ties. Currently, Armenia's only open land borders are with Georgia and Iran. Since the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran began in February, Armenia's transit options via land have been largely limited to Georgia (see EDM, May 19). Bilateral trade--and, eventually, open land borders--with Turkiye will enable Armenia to diversify its trade partners and build stronger economic ties with both Turkiye and Europe.
* * *
Mamie Powers is the Managing Editor of Eurasia Daily Monitor at The Jamestown Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/turkiye-and-armenia-initiate-official-bilateral-trade/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Ifo Institute President Fuest Issues Statement on Business Climate Index
MUNICH, Germany, May 23 -- ifo Institute issued the following statement on May 22, 2026, by President Clemens Fuest on the Business Climate Index:
* * *
ifo Business Climate Index Rises (May 2026)
Sentiment among companies in Germany has recovered slightly following the slump in March and April. The ifo Business Climate Index increased in May to 84.9 points, from 84.5 points in April. The companies assessed the current business situation somewhat more favorable. Expectations for the coming months are also less pessimistic. The German economy is stabilizing for the time being, although situation
... Show Full Article
MUNICH, Germany, May 23 -- ifo Institute issued the following statement on May 22, 2026, by President Clemens Fuest on the Business Climate Index:
* * *
ifo Business Climate Index Rises (May 2026)
Sentiment among companies in Germany has recovered slightly following the slump in March and April. The ifo Business Climate Index increased in May to 84.9 points, from 84.5 points in April. The companies assessed the current business situation somewhat more favorable. Expectations for the coming months are also less pessimistic. The German economy is stabilizing for the time being, although situationremains fragile.
In manufacturing, the business climate improved somewhat due to more positive assessments of the current situation. However, expectations continued to decline. The number of new orders fell.
In the service sector, the index improved considerably. Expectations, in particular, recovered following the slump in the previous two months. The companies also assessed their current business situation to be somewhat more favorable.
Sentiment in the logistics industry remains tense, but is no longer as catastrophic as it was in April. The same also applies to the tourism industry.
In trade, the index rose again. The companies viewed the current situation more favorable. Pessimism in terms of expectations also declined a little. However, the situation continues to be difficult given that wholesaler and retailer consumer spending remains down.
In construction, the business climate fell slightly. This was due to a less favorable assessment of the business situation. Expectations rose somewhat following the slump in April. However, the companies remain skeptical.
* * *
Survey
22 May 2026 ifo Business Climate Index for Germany
ifo Business Climate Index Rises (May 2026)
Sentiment among companies in Germany has recovered slightly following the slump in March and April. The ifo Business Climate Index increased in May to 84.9 points, from 84.5 points in April. The companies assessed the current business situation somewhat more favorable. Expectations for the coming months are also less pessimistic. The German economy is stabilizing for the time being, although situation remains fragile.
Learn more (https://www.ifo.de/en/facts/2026-05-22/ifo-business-climate-index-rises-may-2026)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2026-05-22/ifo-business-climate-index-rises-may-2026
[Category: ThinkTank]
Hudson Institute Issues Commentary to Asia Times: Trump-Xi Summit Didn't Change North Korea's Strategic Reality
WASHINGTON, May 23 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on May 21, 2026, by Asia-Pacific Security Chair Patrick M. Cronin to Asia Times:
* * *
Trump-Xi Summit Didn't Change North Korea's Strategic Reality
The Trump-Xi summit in Beijing may have projected calm at the leader level, but it should not be mistaken for strategic convergence. Whatever one makes of the new language of "constructive strategic stability," the underlying reality is one of constrained rivalry, not cooperation.
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 23 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on May 21, 2026, by Asia-Pacific Security Chair Patrick M. Cronin to Asia Times:
* * *
Trump-Xi Summit Didn't Change North Korea's Strategic Reality
The Trump-Xi summit in Beijing may have projected calm at the leader level, but it should not be mistaken for strategic convergence. Whatever one makes of the new language of "constructive strategic stability," the underlying reality is one of constrained rivalry, not cooperation.That distinction matters greatly when it comes to North Korea.
The Trump administration's China policy increasingly resembles bounded strategic competition rather than unconstrained confrontation. This is not detente in the Cold War sense. It is a transactional effort to reduce the immediate risks of conflict while preserving long-term competition in military power, advanced technology and geopolitical influence. Both Washington and Beijing appear intent on buying time.
For Xi Jinping, such stability serves a clear purpose. It aligns with China's broader strategy of economic resilience, technological advancement, and continued military modernization under the 15th Five-Year Plan. It also reinforces Beijing's preferred global narrative: China as the responsible stabilizer, America as the disruptive military power.
Xi's nominal endorsement of freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz fits neatly into that story, but without any corresponding commitment to use China's leverage with Iran to restore maritime security. Tehran seems to understand this dynamic well. Iran's appointment of a hardline senior political figure as special envoy to Beijing suggests not confidence in Chinese crisis diplomacy, but recognition that China offers political cover, economic lifelines, and diplomatic legitimacy without meaningful pressure or conditions.
Ceremony, however, is not strategy. Summit atmospherics have a short shelf life when unaccompanied by concrete agreements.
Even if Washington and Beijing sustain a temporary trade truce or moderate tensions over technology and security issues, the structural competition remains intact. The administration's actions elsewhere suggest as much. From efforts to limit China's foothold in Panama and the Western Hemisphere to resource competition in Greenland, the broader contest continues unabated.
Indeed, weaponized interdependence has become the defining operating system of US-China relations. Semiconductors, rare earths, supply chains and AI infrastructure are no longer merely economic concerns. They are instruments of national power and strategic coercion.
Mutual dependence no longer reassures; it creates vulnerability. AI governance may be discussed diplomatically, but beneath the rhetoric both powers increasingly see artificial intelligence as a decisive source of military advantage and geopolitical leverage.
Nowhere is the strategic divide clearer than Taiwan.
If the summit demonstrated anything, it is that Beijing views Taiwan not as a secondary irritant, but as the central test of US-China relations and perhaps the clearest measure of whether America's alliances still mean what they say. This is precisely why hopes for major US-China cooperation on North Korea remain unrealistic.
Taiwan and Korea have long been linked in the logic of US credibility and Asian balance-of-power politics. The issue dividing Washington and Beijing is not fundamentally trade or diplomatic rhetoric. It is the future distribution of power in Asia.
Strategic ambiguity has helped preserve peace for decades by deterring both Chinese aggression and unilateral Taiwanese moves toward formal independence. But recent signals have introduced uncertainty.
Trump's criticisms of Taiwan, calls for greater burden-sharing and suggestions that arms sales could serve as negotiating leverage may be intended as tactical positioning, but allies hear something different: wavering commitment. Deterrence depends on not only capabilities but confidence. Tactical calm today could simply reflect Beijing's decision to buy time while expanding its leverage for a future move.
That same logic applies to North Korea.
Leader-level de-escalation between Washington and Beijing does not translate into strategic alignment on the Korean Peninsula because their interests fundamentally diverge. Avoiding war may be a shared objective. Advancing each other's strategic interests is not.
China will not deliver North Korea for Washington.
Beijing may prefer stability on the peninsula, but its deeper priority is limiting American strategic advantage. The era when denuclearization served as a common diplomatic slogan has faded. For Beijing, North Korea increasingly functions less as a proliferation challenge than as a geopolitical buffer and a potential source of leverage against the United States and its allies.
That does not mean diplomacy with Pyongyang is impossible. President Trump may well seek renewed summit diplomacy with Kim Jong Un. But expectations about China's role should be disciplined. At most, Beijing may support tactical crisis management to prevent war or regime collapse. It is unlikely to meaningfully pressure Pyongyang in ways that strengthen US influence, weaken North Korea's strategic utility or advance genuine denuclearization.
Nor would Kim return to diplomacy from weakness.
The Kim Jong Un of today is not the leader Trump met in 2018. He now operates with greater nuclear confidence, stronger constitutional legitimacy, Russian political and military backing and a clearer long-term dynastic vision.
North Korea seeks recognition as a permanent nuclear weapons state while simultaneously strengthening both its nuclear and conventional military capabilities, aided in part by Moscow's wartime dependence on North Korean munitions and manpower.
The strategic environment has changed.
The emerging order in Asia is one not of reconciliation but of managed rivalry - stability without trust, deterrence without resolution and diplomacy without convergence. That is precisely why strengthening the US-ROK alliance and trilateral cooperation with Japan remain indispensable. Not because diplomacy has failed, but because diplomacy now unfolds in a far more dangerous strategic landscape.
Read in Asia Times (https://asiatimes.com/2026/05/trump-xi-summit-didnt-change-north-koreas-strategic-reality/).
* * *
At A Glance:
Patrick M. Cronin is the Asia-Pacific security chair at Hudson Institute.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/trump-xi-summit-didnt-change-north-koreas-strategic-reality-patrick-cronin
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center Issues InfluenceWatch Wrapup on May 22, 2026
WASHINGTON, May 23 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following InfluenceWatch wrapup on May 22, 2026, by Jonathan Harsh:
* * *
InfluenceWatch, a project of Capital Research Center, is a comprehensive and ever-evolving compilation of our research into the numerous advocacy groups, foundations, and donors working to influence the public policy process. The website offers transparency into these influencers' funding, motives, and connections while providing insight often neglected by other watchdog groups.
The information compiled in InfluenceWatch gives news outlets and other interested
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 23 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following InfluenceWatch wrapup on May 22, 2026, by Jonathan Harsh:
* * *
InfluenceWatch, a project of Capital Research Center, is a comprehensive and ever-evolving compilation of our research into the numerous advocacy groups, foundations, and donors working to influence the public policy process. The website offers transparency into these influencers' funding, motives, and connections while providing insight often neglected by other watchdog groups.
The information compiled in InfluenceWatch gives news outlets and other interestedparties research to use in reporting on significant topics that are often overlooked by the American public.
CRC is pleased to present some of the most significant additions to InfluenceWatch in the past week:
* 60 Plus Association is a right-of-center senior rights advocacy group that claims to be an alternative to the AARP. The group has advocated in favor of passing the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development (SPEED) Act, increasing U.S.-based extraction of minerals and energy, and withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO). A 2018 report by Issue One claimed that 60 Plus was one of 15 "dark money" groups that made up more than 75 percent of the political "dark money" spent between January 2010 and December 2016, totaling more than $600 million.
* Resolve Philadelphia is a left-of-center nonprofit media outlet that focuses on stories from Philadelphia neighborhoods, especially Germantown and Overbrook. The group claims to focus on advancing "journalism rooted in equity, collaboration, and the elevation of community voices." According to tax filings, the group has received funding from the Ford Foundation, the Democracy Fund, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and the John S. And James L, Knight Foundation.
* White Rose Resistance (WRR), registered with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as Vindex Media, is a pro-life activist group that advocates against abortion. WRR was founded in 2022 following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision overturning Roe v. Wade, and was named after a German student-led Christian group that resisted the Nazi regime during World War II. Tax filings show that WRR has received funding from DonorsTrust, the Greater Houston Community Foundation, the National Philanthropic Trust, and the Raymond James Charitable Endowment Fund.
* Sierra Club Delta Chapter is the Louisiana-state chapter of the Sierra Club. It has worked with other environmentalist groups, including the Gulf Restoration Network, the Waterkeeper Alliance, and Earthjustice. The Delta Chapter is also a member of Louisiana Against False Solutions (LAFS), a left-of-center coalition opposing the development of traditional energy projects in the state. LAFS is a fiscally sponsored project of the Foundation for Louisiana. Members of the LAFS coalition have received funding from the Waverly Street Foundation, the David and Lucille Packard Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Bezos Earth Fund.
* The Swift Foundation is a private grantmaking organization founded in 1999 by John Swift, after he sold his family's shares in UPS. In 2022, the foundation announced that it would be sunsetting, and that it would spend its endowment down by 2028 to ensure "a transference of family wealth to Indigenous wisdom keepers and cultural bearers living in Indigenous homelands and communities." Its grantees have included the Global Greengrants Fund, Thousand Currents, the Climate Justice Alliance, and Grassroots International.
* * *
Jonathan Harsh holds a master's degree in political science from James Madison University and a bachelor's degree in political science from Beloit College.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/influencewatch-friday-05-22-2026/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: Will the AI Economy Have a Middle Class? The Case for an AI Homestead Policy
WASHINGTON, May 23 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on May 22, 2026, by Navin Girishankar, president of the Economic Security and Technology Department:
* * *
Will the AI Economy Have a Middle Class? The Case for an AI Homestead Policy
AI is beginning to split the U.S. economy. On one end, the data center buildout is generating strong demand for skilled trades, such as electricians, HVAC technicians, and construction managers, not seen in years. On the other end, elite AI research and engineering jobs command salaries in the high six- and
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 23 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on May 22, 2026, by Navin Girishankar, president of the Economic Security and Technology Department:
* * *
Will the AI Economy Have a Middle Class? The Case for an AI Homestead Policy
AI is beginning to split the U.S. economy. On one end, the data center buildout is generating strong demand for skilled trades, such as electricians, HVAC technicians, and construction managers, not seen in years. On the other end, elite AI research and engineering jobs command salaries in the high six- andeven seven-figure range. The pressure point lies in the sizable middle: paralegals, insurance adjusters, customer support specialists, and other mid-level cognitive workers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) counts roughly 20 million Americans in office, administrative, and business operations occupations that Goldman Sachs identifies as facing the highest AI automation exposure--35 to 46 percent of their tasks technically automatable today, though how quickly that translates into job losses remains uncertain.
* * *
Figure 1: The AI Economy Barbell
* * *
Nevertheless, we should heed the warnings of the AI industry's own leaders, such as Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman's expectations of the imminent transition for office workers and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman's April 2026 call for redistributive robot taxes and a national wealth fund. These warnings may not go far enough. For many families, prolonged white-collar displacement would become more than an income problem. It would become a balance-sheet problem--forcing households to draw down savings, tap retirement accounts, delay homeownership, and interrupt the process through which wages become assets and assets compound over time. The domino effect would cut against the central promise of the American dream: that wage earners can become asset owners.
Several issues are vying for voters' attention in the run-up to the 2026 midterm elections: affordability, the war with Iran, the data center buildout in their backyards, and next-generation fears about what AI will do to jobs. But they should demand a more fundamental debate about how to build a modern version of the wages-to-wealth ladder, akin to the one originally envisioned by Abraham Lincoln 170 years ago. In his 1859 address to the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society, he argued: "The prudent, penniless beginner labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account." President Lincoln backed that vision with policy: The Homestead Act transferred 270 million acres of public land to numerous Americans, admittedly to the detriment of native peoples, on an unprecedented scale. The Morrill Land-Grant College Act put advanced education within reach of working-class families. The transcontinental railroad, financed by federal land grants, opened up markets and livelihoods across the country.
As technology transformed the economy, successive generations adapted the model. Progressive-era antitrust reforms opened industrial-age opportunities. The GI Bill and Veterans Affairs mortgages expanded homeownership after World War II, albeit with the exclusion of many Black veterans. The 401(k) created broad-based access to financial asset ownership beyond real estate. Through fits and starts, the United States built the rungs of a ladder connecting wages to wealth. The question today is whether policymakers can rebuild that ladder for an AI economy.
The current White House AI Action Plan, along with the accompanying Executive Order 14179, reflects an ambitious push for decisive American leadership in AI across science, exports, energy infrastructure, workforce, and innovation. It is fundamentally a bet that deregulation will deliver innovation with safety and productivity gains with new job creation. But that approach also risks accelerating the concentration of wealth and market power in an industry already dominated by a few large firms with extraordinary advantages in compute, capital, data, and distribution. And it underweights the possibility that market forces alone may not adequately account for the costs of the coming AI labor transition for workers--or the concerns of communities confronting large-scale AI infrastructure buildouts in their backyards.
The Biden-era approach was equally ambitious in its own way, relying more heavily on federal grants, subsidies, and rigorous safety standards to steer firms behavior, including where firms locate anchor investments and how innovation clusters form. But the risks of that approach were that different industrial policy mechanisms were often too slow and bureaucratic to meet the demands of the technology race. And they tended to overload incentives with social and environmental conditions that delayed or disincentivized the very investments policymakers were seeking to accelerate. Earlier industrial revolutions unfolded over decades. AI appears poised to reorganize labor markets, enterprise structures, and capital concentration within a few short years.
Neither approach focuses on the importance of preserving economic dynamism--the composite of individual capability, opportunity for firms and workers, and the connectivity of communities to broader markets--especially during technology transformations. The United States needs an AI Homestead policy--a reimagining of Lincoln's concept. The original Homestead Act was not narrowly a redistributive tax on the gains of westward expansion. It gave broad swathes of the American population access to the nineteenth century's productive frontier. An AI Homestead should represent a broad policy and private sector commitment to give Americans a fighting chance to own the AI economy's productive frontier before those gains are locked in.
The AI Homestead starts with individual capability. The United States needs a massive retooling effort for workers of all ages as AI reshapes how work gets done across the economy. Incremental workforce programs will not be enough. Nor is it wise to leave it to individuals to figure it out purely on their own, given China's massive AI diffusion efforts. While the government should not be in the business of providing training, Congress should establish AI training vouchers and targeted tax breaks to give workers an incentive to acquire AI-related skills. The goal is not simply to retrain workers after disruption occurs. It is to maintain the adaptive capacity of the American workforce before displacement hardens into economic exclusion. A growing body of evidence suggests the future of work may not be defined by humans competing against AI, but by AI-enabled workers pulling away from other workers without access to AI tools, training, and complementary skills.
Second is labor mobility. Roughly one-quarter of the workforce remains constrained by outdated occupational licensing barriers. Interstate credential portability and AI transition insurance--unemployment insurance for job losses directly related to automation--would make it easier for workers to move across sectors and regions as technology reshapes labor demand.
Third is business formation. Congress should extend Qualified Small Business Stock tax exclusions to small businesses deploying AI productively, not simply venture-backed startups building frontier models. Federally supported ventures with a threshold of AI content should mandate worker equity participation. The goal should be to spur millions of AI-enabled small and midsize firms across the real economy--not concentrate wealth narrowly in a few large firms in the technology or financial sectors.
Fourth, dynamism requires ownership. Much of the country's wealth remains tied either to wages or to housing assets dependent on continued income flows. We cannot wait to broaden participation in the AI economy until after its gains are already concentrated among a connected few. In the AI era, data itself is becoming a productive asset class. Americans should not participate in this economy solely as consumers or sources of extraction. A modern AI Homestead should establish baseline rights that allow citizens and communities to participate in the economic value created from the data they generate. Congress should therefore establish a framework for personal data rights that treats data not merely as a privacy issue, but increasingly as an economic asset.
These elements are interlinked. You cannot own what you cannot access. Individual capability and labor mobility are therefore preconditions for ownership. Business formation broadens participation in wealth creation. And durable ownership increasingly depends on meaningful access to the infrastructure layer of the AI economy itself.
The final component of the AI Homestead, therefore, is community connectivity, and at the center of that debate lies compute itself. Five hyperscalers now control approximately 71 percent of global AI compute, up from 63 percent in early 2024. These companies are investing enormous sums in data centers that require land, power, water, and political consent--consent that is no longer guaranteed. In Memphis, the NAACP sued xAI over unpermitted gas turbines operating in a predominantly Black neighborhood; in Virginia, data center growth drove an 833 percent spike in capacity market prices, forcing regulators to create a new rate class to shield households, though it still forced up the average monthly bill by $11. As $98 billion in blocked or delayed projects in a single quarter of 2025 demonstrates, that friction creates leverage.
Communities that host these data centers should gain more than temporary construction jobs or modest tax benefits. They should gain an ownership stake in the future's productive infrastructure. As a condition of major federal permitting and support, hyperscalers should contribute a portion of compute capacity to local community compute pools that are accessible to local entrepreneurs, schools, and community colleges at below-market rates. The railroads received land grants and carried mail at regulated rates. Natural gas pipelines operate under open-access principles. The AI Homestead therefore should include a "compute commons." This is not a tax on success--it is the same public interest obligation that prior generations of infrastructure builders recognized as essential to building public trust and political durability. The same should be true for AI.
When Lincoln signed the Homestead Act, he was not merely distributing land. He was broadening access to the productive frontier of the age. That architecture helped build the agricultural and industrial base that made the United States the world's largest economy by the end of the century. The cost of failing to build an AI Homestead is not simply greater inequality. It is the erosion of what long made American capitalism distinct from rival systems: the belief that ordinary citizens could participate in the upside compounded wealth. America's wages-to-wealth ladder was not an accident. It was built. The AI era necessitates building it again.
* * *
Navin Girishankar is president of the Economic Security and Technology Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/will-ai-economy-have-middle-class-case-ai-homestead-policy
[Category: ThinkTank]
American Action Forum Issues Commentary: Tracker - The Federal Reserve's Balance Sheet Assets
WASHINGTON, May 23 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on May 22, 2026, by Financial Services Policy Director Thomas Kingsley:
* * *
Tracker: The Federal Reserve's Balance Sheet Assets
Introduction
This tracker follows the Federal Reserve's (Fed) total consolidated assets, held on its balance sheet, as the best indicator of the Fed's direct intervention in the economy.
Context
The Fed's dual mandate requires it to ensure both stable prices and maximum employment. The traditional tool the Fed uses to accomplish these goals is the adjustment of the federal funds rate,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 23 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on May 22, 2026, by Financial Services Policy Director Thomas Kingsley:
* * *
Tracker: The Federal Reserve's Balance Sheet Assets
Introduction
This tracker follows the Federal Reserve's (Fed) total consolidated assets, held on its balance sheet, as the best indicator of the Fed's direct intervention in the economy.
Context
The Fed's dual mandate requires it to ensure both stable prices and maximum employment. The traditional tool the Fed uses to accomplish these goals is the adjustment of the federal funds rate,the short-term interest rate that determines how much it costs for banks to lend to each other overnight. The 2007-2008 financial crisis, however, demonstrated that even lowering the interest rate to zero was considered insufficient to shore up economies in freefall, and the Fed turned to more unusual tactics.
One of these measures was what the Fed refers to as "large-scale asset purchases," which is more commonly known as "quantitative easing." Under this process, the Fed enters the market to buy securities, typically mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and Treasuries, injecting both capital and liquidity into the market. This approach is not without risks - for the first time in its history, the Fed is regulator, supervisor, and now participant in the economy.
The development of quantitative easing as a go-to tool for the Fed in times of crisis has led to an unprecedented focus on one of its traditionally unremarkable aspects - the Fed total assets. Just as with any other firm, securities that the Fed purchases are considered assets and therefore are represented on the Fed's balance sheet.
This therefore is the most reflective guide of the state of quantitative easing and, by extension, the degree to which the Fed has deemed it necessary to intervene in the economy.
Each week, the Federal Reserve publishes its balance sheet, typically on Wednesday afternoon around 4:30 p.m.
As of May 20, the Fed's assets stand at $6.7 trillion, down nearly $15 billion from the prior week but up nearly $25 billion from a year ago.
Sources:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WALCL
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TREAST
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WSHOMCB
* * *
Thomas Kingsley is the Director of Financial Services Policy at the American Action Forum.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/tracker-the-federal-reserves-balance-sheet/
[Category: Think Tank]
America First Policy Institute: America Wins With Higher Education's New Accreditation Rules
WASHINGTON, May 23 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on May 22, 2026:
* * *
America wins with Higher Education's New Accreditation Rules
AFPI congratulates Secretary McMahon and the Department of Education for achieving consensus yesterday at the final meeting of its Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) Committee's negotiated rulemaking sessions.
The sessions brought together experts and stakeholders representing a wide range of perspectives to craft new rules responding to President Trump's executive orders, which directed the department
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 23 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on May 22, 2026:
* * *
America wins with Higher Education's New Accreditation Rules
AFPI congratulates Secretary McMahon and the Department of Education for achieving consensus yesterday at the final meeting of its Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) Committee's negotiated rulemaking sessions.
The sessions brought together experts and stakeholders representing a wide range of perspectives to craft new rules responding to President Trump's executive orders, which directed the departmentto restore common sense, quality, flexibility, and accountability to the nation's higher education regulatory system.
"This is a tremendous step forward for American students, families, and workers.
It brings transparency to higher education, creates incentives to keep college costs down, and refocuses the sector's regulatory energy on student success rather than bureaucratic bloat," said Dr. Michael Shires, AFPI vice chair for Education Opportunity, who represented taxpayers and the public interest in the negotiations.
"The new rules also open the door to innovation and competition by simplifying the very processes that prior administrations used to protect the status quo and block accountability and change in American higher education."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/america-wins-with-higher-educations-new-accreditation-rules
[Category: ThinkTank]
