Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Ifo Institute: Reforms in Germany Could Relieve the Federal Budget by Up to EUR 60 Billion
MUNICH, Germany, June 17 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on June 16, 2026:* * *
Reforms in Germany Could Relieve the Federal Budget by up to EUR 60 billion
According to the ifo Institute, the German government's financial situation could be improved by up to EUR 60 billion annually by 2030. That's according to calculations by the ifo Institute on behalf of the New Social Free Market Initiative. The federal government could generate around EUR 54 billion through changes to pension insurance, parental allowance, and subsidies. An additional six billion could be generated at ... Show Full Article MUNICH, Germany, June 17 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on June 16, 2026: * * * Reforms in Germany Could Relieve the Federal Budget by up to EUR 60 billion According to the ifo Institute, the German government's financial situation could be improved by up to EUR 60 billion annually by 2030. That's according to calculations by the ifo Institute on behalf of the New Social Free Market Initiative. The federal government could generate around EUR 54 billion through changes to pension insurance, parental allowance, and subsidies. An additional six billion could be generated atthe federal level through growth-promoting investments. "Our calculations show that it is possible to significantly improve the German government's financial situation. To achieve that, reform packages need to be initiated now that will take effect in the next four years," says ifo President Clemens Fuest.
The ifo Institute has calculated a scenario for pension insurance in which pensions would be linked to inflation and no longer to wages. In addition, in this scenario, the "mothers' pension" will be reduced in the next four years to 50 percent of its current level.
These measures would result in savings of around 20 billion by 2030 compared to the planned spending to date. A further EUR 3 billion in federal spending could be saved by lowering the income threshold for parental allowance to EUR 50,000 (for couples and single parents).
The German government would have to spend around EUR 31 billion less if all subsidies that have not yet been approved were cut by 60 percent over the next four years. Finally, a greater focus on productivity-enhancing investments could improve the government's financial situation by a further EUR six billion.
"It is only by consolidating the federal budget that Germany can prevent a huge rise in net borrowing and public debt in the coming years," says Fuest. "The focus here should be on the largest expenditure items, particularly pension spending and subsidies."
Information about the ifo study on the INSM website (in German) (https://www.insm.de/aktuelles/publikationen/vorab-studienergebnisse-milliarden-einsparpotenzial-im-bundeshaushalt)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2026-06-16/reforms-germany-could-relieve-federal-budget-eur-60-billion
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center on Budget & Policy Priorities: Analysis Justifying Trump Administration's Medicaid Work Requirement Rule Is Deeply Flawed
WASHINGTON, June 17 -- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued the following research note by Gideon Lukens, director of research and data analysis at the Health Policy Team:* * *
Analysis Justifying Trump Administration's Medicaid Work Requirement Rule Is Deeply Flawed
The 2025 reconciliation law instituted a harmful policy taking Medicaid coverage away from people not meeting a harsh work requirement, and the Trump Administration recently finalized a rule that will make the policy even more harmful./[1] In particular, the new rule makes it harder for people to qualify for an exemption ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 17 -- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued the following research note by Gideon Lukens, director of research and data analysis at the Health Policy Team: * * * Analysis Justifying Trump Administration's Medicaid Work Requirement Rule Is Deeply Flawed The 2025 reconciliation law instituted a harmful policy taking Medicaid coverage away from people not meeting a harsh work requirement, and the Trump Administration recently finalized a rule that will make the policy even more harmful./[1] In particular, the new rule makes it harder for people to qualify for an exemptionfrom the work requirement due to medical frailty, which includes: blindness or disability; substance use disorder; disabling mental disorder; physical, intellectual, or developmental disability that significantly impairs a person's ability to perform one or more activities of daily living; and serious or complex medication condition. As a result, people with these conditions will likely experience significantly more coverage loss./[2]
Major federal rules require a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) to help policymakers and the public understand the benefits and costs of the rule and determine whether the benefits are likely to justify the costs. The RIA for the Medicaid work requirement rule is deeply flawed: it greatly inflates the benefits of the rule while ignoring most of the costs.
The Analysis Ignores Impacts of Coverage Loss and Disregards Research and Evidence
Three peer-reviewed studies found that Medicaid work requirements in Arkansas had no impacts on employment or hours worked but led to large-scale disenrollment and increased uninsurance.
The RIA ignores societal costs of taking away Medicaid coverage. Without health coverage, people are more likely to die, be in poorer health, and accumulate medical debt./[3] Omitting the impacts of coverage loss, which are large and strongly supported by the research literature, is indefensible and runs counter to federal guidance for regulatory analysis./[4]
The RIA ignores all studies assessing the impact of Medicaid work requirements. There are three peer-reviewed studies analyzing the impacts of Medicaid work requirements in Arkansas, the only state to follow through with taking coverage away from people who didn't meet the harsh requirements, disenrolling 1 in 4 enrollees subject to them./[5] The studies found that Medicaid work requirements had no impacts on employment or hours worked but led to large-scale disenrollment and increased uninsurance. Rates of coverage loss were similar in other states that attempted Medicaid work requirement policies. New Hampshire halted its policy after being on the verge of disenrolling about 1 in 3 Medicaid expansion enrollees, implying an even higher rate of coverage loss than in Arkansas./[6] Similarly, Michigan was set to disenroll nearly 1 in 3 enrollees subject to its requirement before its program was blocked by a court ruling./[7] Instead of engaging with the evidence, the RIA states, "We have not relied on these previous demonstrations for data or assumptions used in this analysis." It's striking that an RIA for the Medicaid work requirement would ignore studies of Medicaid work requirements.
The RIA assumes the work requirement will increase employment and result in low disenrollment, contrary to evidence. The research on Medicaid work requirements finds no impact on employment and much higher rates of disenrollment than assumed in the RIA. The RIA's estimate of net Medicaid coverage loss of 3.3 million people in 2034 is far below the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate of about 5.7 million, in large part because CBO incorporates the relevant research and data that the RIA ignores./[8]
Analytically Unsound Assumptions Drive RIA Results
In addition to the obvious flaws discussed above, the RIA relies on assumptions that are weakly supported, arbitrary, or unrealistic. These assumptions are complex and technical but important drivers of the RIA's results.
The RIA assigns implausibly large net social benefits to employment. The RIA assumes that the societal benefits and costs of the Medicaid work requirement derive overwhelmingly from the impact on employment and other forms of community engagement (e.g., volunteering, education). The RIA values the time benefit of work as the additional output of the work done by people subject to the requirement (the marginal product of labor), which it estimates by using their assumed pre-tax compensation of $25 per hour as a proxy.
But it values the time cost of the work requirement using a different approach: a person's net private return to working, or the wage a person requires to choose to work. The RIA approximates this amount using a Trump Administration estimate of the economy-wide average effective marginal tax rate/[9] and subtracts $12 per hour of purported taxes and transfers from its assumed $25 per hour rate of pre-tax compensation. The result is an estimated $13 per hour time cost of work, only about half of the $25 per hour estimated time benefit.
The RIA counts the entire $12 per hour gap between the two approaches as a net social benefit, an assumption that is inconsistent with federal guidelines and best practice for benefit-cost analysis, which call for careful examination of the affected population's employment decisions and market conditions./[10] Treating the full gap as a net social benefit is also an extreme assumption given economic research showing that such gaps can arise for many reasons./[11]
Even aside from the RIA's thin conceptual basis, the calculated gap is more than double what it should be, according to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) estimates of population-specific effective marginal tax rates for a population similar to the one subject to the work requirement (i.e., low-income households, mostly without children)./[12]
The RIA is even weaker in its valuation of non-work activities such as volunteering and education. It assumes the same inflated net benefit of $12 per hour as it did for its valuation of work, even though the conceptual basis for such a valuation does not apply. For example, the value of volunteer time depends on the volunteer activities and whether the person derives satisfaction from them, while the value of education depends on the type of education and impacts on earnings./[13]
The RIA overestimates "human capital" benefits of employment, such as work knowledge and relationships, for former Medicaid enrollees who it assumes become employed and remain working after they are no longer enrolled. The RIA bases its estimate on a study of a 1990s Canadian policy that offered extra income for people who chose to take up full-time work, a policy that is poorly suited for understanding the Medicaid work requirement, which will block or take away health coverage from people not working (or participating in other qualified activities) at least 80 hours per month./[14]
The Canadian study itself stated that due to the policy's unusual design, a more fulsome model is needed to evaluate "even minor variants" of an income subsidy program (much less a completely different policy like the Medicaid work requirement). Moreover, the study showed benefits falling rapidly after 15 months and having "no lasting impact." But the RIA's assumptions imply that benefits persist well beyond what was found in the Canadian study. Finally, the RIA combines its overestimates of human capital benefits derived from the Canadian study with a largely arbitrary assumption about how many former Medicaid enrollees would benefit.
The RIA inflates budgetary savings by unrealistically assuming immediate, fully phased-in impacts. This assumption is inconsistent with the policy design of the work requirement and runs counter to state experience and research./[15] By assuming immediate, fully phased-in impacts, the RIA overestimates cumulative ten-year budgetary savings without increasing its maximum annual estimate of coverage loss.
* * *
Gideon Lukens is Senior Fellow and Director of Research and Data Analysis on the Health Policy team, where he works on Medicaid, health insurance exchanges, and other policy issues.
* * *
End Notes
[1] Interim final rule text available at Federal Register, "Medicaid Program: Community Engagement Requirement for Certain Individuals," Vol. 91, No. 106, June 3, 2026, https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2026-11094/medicaid-program-community-engagement-requirement-for-certain-individuals; Jennifer Wagner and Allison Orris, "Administration's Last-Minute Restrictions Likely to Worsen Impact of Medicaid Work Requirement," CBPP, June 3, 2026, https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/administrations-last-minute-restrictions-likely-to-worsen-impact-of-medicaid-work.
[2] Wagner and Orris, 2026.
[3] Angela Wyse and Bruce Meyer, "Saved by Medicaid: New Evidence on Health Insurance and Mortality from the Universe of Low-Income Adults," NBER Working Paper 33719, May 2025, https://www.nber.org/papers/w33719; Sarah Miller, Norman Johnson, and Laura Wherry, "Medicaid and Mortality: New Evidence from Linked Survey and Administrative Data," Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 135, Issue 3, January 30, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjab004; Melissa McInerney et al., "ACA Medicaid Expansion Associated With Increased Medicaid Participation and Improved Health Among Near-Elderly: Evidence From the Health and Retirement Study," Inquiry, July 28, 2020, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7388087/; Luojia Hu et al., "The Effect of the Affordable Care Act Medicaid Expansions on Financial Wellbeing," Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 163, May 7, 2018, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6208351/.
[4] Office of Management and Budget (OMB), "Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis," September 17, 2003, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/CircularA-4.pdf.
[5] Anuj Gangopadhyaya and Michael Karpman, "The Impact of Arkansas Medicaid Work Requirements on Coverage and Employment: Estimating Effects Using National Survey Data," Health Services Research, Vol. 60, Issue 5, October 2025, https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.14624; Jennifer Wagner and Jessica Schubel, "States' Experience Confirm Harmful Effects of Medicaid Work Requirements," CBPP, updated November 18, 2020, https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/states-experiences-confirm-harmful-effects-of-medicaid-work-requirements; Benjamin Sommers et al., "Medicaid Work Requirements In Arkansas: Two-Year Impacts On Coverage, Employment, and Affordability of Care," Health Affairs, Vol. 39, No. 9, September 8, 2020, https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00538; Benjamin Sommes et al., "Medicaid Work Requirements - Results from the First Year in Arkansas," New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 381, No. 11, June 19, 2019, https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsr1901772.
[6] Michael Karpman, Jennifer Haley, and Genevieve Kenney, "Assessing Potential Coverage Losses Among Medicaid Expansion Enrollees Under a Federal Medicaid Work Requirement," Urban Institute, March 17, 2025, https://www.urban.org/research/publication/assessing-potential-coverage-losses-among-medicaid-expansion-enrollees-under; Ian Hill, Emily Burroughs, and Gina Adams, "New Hampshire's Experience with Medicaid Work Requirements: New Strategies, Similar Results," Urban Institute, February 10, 2020, https://www.urban.org/research/publication/new-hampshires-experiences-medicaid-work-requirements-new-strategies-similar-results.
[7] Wagner and Schubel, 2020.
[8] CBO, 2025.
[9] The estimated effective marginal tax rate includes both taxes and government benefits that are forgone when income increases. White House Council of Economic Advisers, "Economic Report of the President," March 2019, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ERP-2019/pdf/ERP-2019.pdf.
[10] Robert Haveman and David Weimer, "Public Policy Induced Changes in Employment: Valuation Issues for Benefit-Cost Analysis," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Vol. 6, Issue 1, April 22, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2015.5; OMB, 2003.
[11] Lini Zhang, "Credit Crunches, Individual Heterogeneity and the Labor Wedge," Journal of Macroeconomics, Vol. 56, June 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmacro.2018.01.002; Patrick Kehoe, Virgiliu Midrigan, and Elena Pastorino, "Debt Constraints and the Labor Wedge," American Economic Review, Vol 106, No. 5, May 2016, https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.p20161088; Anton Cheremukhin and Paulina Restrepo-Echavarria, "The Labor Wedge as a Matching Friction," Vol. 68, May 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2014.02.008; Loukas Karabarbounis, "The Labor Wedge: MRS vs. MPN," Review of Economic Dynamics, Vol. 17, Issue 2, April 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.red.2013.07.003.
[12] The Trump Administration estimate that underlies the RIA's effective marginal tax rate is a single economy-wide value. The HHS estimates, which are not used for the RIA, are more relevant because they are derived from a population similar to people who will be subject to the work requirement. Nina Chien and Suzanne Macartney, "What Happens When People Increase Their Earnings? Effective Marginal Tax Rates for Low-Income Households," Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning & Evaluation (ASPE), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, March 2019, https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/private/aspe-files/260661/brief2-overviewmtranalyses.pdf.
[13] Aidan Vining and David Weimer, "An Assessment of Important Issues Concerning the Application of Benefit-Cost Analysis to Social Policy," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Vol. 1, Issue 1, January 19, 2015, https://doi.org/10.2202/2152-2812.1013.
[14] David Card and Dean Hyslop, "Estimating the Effects of a Time-Limited Earnings Subsidy for Welfare-Leavers," Econometrica, Vol. 73, Issue 6, October 11, 2005, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00637.x.
[15] Matthew Fiedler, "How Would Implementing an Arkansas-Style Work Requirement Affect Medicaid Enrollment?" April 30, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-would-implementing-an-arkansas-style-work-requirement-affect-medicaid-enrollment/.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/analysis-justifying-trump-administrations-medicaid-work-requirement-rule-is-deeply
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Critical Questions Q&A: Department of Commerce Restricted Access to Anthropic's Latest Models. What Comes Next?
WASHINGTON, June 17 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following Critical Questions Q&A on June 16, 2026, involving Deputy Director Kate Koren, senior technical expert (non-resident) Kevin Kurland, both of the Economics Program and Scholl Chairs in International Business, and Wadhwani AI Center Director Aalok Mehta:* * *
The Department of Commerce Restricted Access to Anthropic's Latest Models. What Comes Next?
Late Friday, June 12, the Department of Commerce sent a letter to Anthropic informing the AI developer that it was imposing export controls on its latest ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 17 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following Critical Questions Q&A on June 16, 2026, involving Deputy Director Kate Koren, senior technical expert (non-resident) Kevin Kurland, both of the Economics Program and Scholl Chairs in International Business, and Wadhwani AI Center Director Aalok Mehta: * * * The Department of Commerce Restricted Access to Anthropic's Latest Models. What Comes Next? Late Friday, June 12, the Department of Commerce sent a letter to Anthropic informing the AI developer that it was imposing export controls on its latestmodels, Fable 5 and Mythos 5. An approved export license from the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), the Commerce component responsible for implementing major aspects of the U.S. export control regime, is now required for any foreign persons, whether inside or outside of the United States, to access the models. The requirement includes Anthropic's foreign national employees. According to Anthropic, "The net effect of this order is that we must abruptly disable Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for all our customers to ensure compliance."
The letter, which has not been made public, reportedly cited national security concerns. Mediareports over the weekend say that the White House requested feedback from other companies on the safety of Fable 5, a version of Anthropic's most powerful model, Mythos. Anthropic had initially restricted access to Mythos to trusted partners, eventually releasing Fable 5 with guardrails in place that limit its ability to respond to questions asking to identify cyber vulnerabilities. Amazon's researchers reportedly identified methods that could bypass the guardrails, an attack known as "jailbreaking," prompting fears that Fable 5 users could identify and exploit cyber vulnerabilities.
The following analysis examines the regulatory issues of export controls on AI models, the impacts on industry, and the potential paths forward.
Q1: What authorities does BIS have to control access to AI models?
A1: The Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) authorizes Commerce to regulate, via the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), the export, reexport, or in-country transfer of certain military, dual-use, and commercial commodities, software, and technology. This includes the deemed export or reexport of certain technology (i.e., release or transfer of software or technology) to a foreign national in the United States or abroad. In limited circumstances, ECRA authorizes the implementation of controls over the activities of U.S. persons involved in the "support" of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs, or military, intelligence, or foreign security end uses or end users, including activities involving items outside the scope of the EAR. The EAR currently only regulates a limited, defined set of support activities related to WMD and military-intelligence end uses/users.
The EAR imposes controls based on the destination of the item, end use, or end user, and it can tailor controls to specified items and technology worldwide or to country groups. The Entity List also allows Commerce to control all items subject to the EAR to parties identified as acting contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy interests. These types of controls are imposed through regulation and impact any person involved in activities subject to the EAR.
Additional "catch-all" controls impose a license requirement under the EAR when an exporter knows an item will be used directly or indirectly for WMD-related activities or certain military end uses/users (including military-intelligence), or when a U.S. person knowingly supports, for example, WMD or military-intelligence activity. Commerce can also inform individual companies or persons of additional licensing requirements for items or U.S. persons' activities related to these same end use/user controls. When Commerce informs a company, the company is considered informed that the export or activity will be used in a manner that requires a license.
However, the EAR, at times, restricts the ability of the U.S. government to issue "is informed" license requirements to activities involving specific country groups. The ability to issue a letter imposing a worldwide license requirement currently only applies to exports, reexports, or in-country transfers for WMD activities, U.S. persons activities related to chemical or biological weapons, or exports to a party involved in activities contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy interests.
ECRA also directs Commerce to establish controls on emerging and foundational technologies, including by informing a person that a license is required. The "is informed" mechanism here is not limited by country scope, but this authority has not been implemented by a regulation as required by ECRA.
In terms of AI models, this means that Commerce has authority to impose a license requirement on:
* any item subject to the EAR through publication of a new regulation, thus setting up a construct applicable to all exporters; or
* a company's export, reexport, or in-country transfer of such models (e.g., in the form of software or technology), including to foreign nationals, to address WMD or military end-use/user concerns; or
* a U.S. person's support to certain foreign activities (i.e., WMD and military-intelligence end uses/users), including performing any contract or service, such as model training.
The EAR controls AI model weights--including those produced overseas from controlled U.S. software and technology under the foreign direct product rule--through the AI diffusion rule, which was published in January 2025. The rule, however, is not currently being enforced pursuant to a May 2025 announcement by BIS, and therefore license requirements on AI model weights are not in effect. Commerce does not have the authority to reinstate enforcement on specific provisions of the AI diffusion rule, including model weight controls, to an individual company.
Q2: What authorities did BIS use to impose controls on foreign national access to Anthropic's Fable 5 and Mythos 5?
A2: While the letter has not been made public, media reports and discussions with people who have seen the letter indicate it cites the authority in ECRA to establish interim controls on emerging and foundational technologies, including by informing a person a license is required. As noted above, there is no regulatory framework in the EAR for this statutory authority, which is why it has never been used before as the basis for issuing a control.
The statute does not explicitly allow for a worldwide "is informed" control but does not exclude it either. By design, the statutory language is brief and nonspecific, as the details are intended to be developed in a more fulsome regulation through the federal rulemaking process. Commerce has yet to develop a regulation laying out the details and implementing this authority.
The letter reportedly also cites Section 744.22 of the EAR, which allows Commerce to use "is informed" controls when there is an unacceptable risk of use in or diversion to a military- intelligence end use/user. However, this section of the EAR only allows Commerce to impose license requirements on a small group of adversarial countries, not a worldwide control.
Furthermore, for Section 744.22 military-intelligence controls (or any other item-based controls) to apply, foreign national access to an AI model must be subject to the EAR. The letter reportedly cites Section 734.13, which defines the regulatory scope for an export, as how AI model access is controlled. However, this exact section was used by Commerce in threepreviousAdvisory Opinions as the reason why remote access transactions are not subject to the EAR.
Q3: Why is Commerce's authority to control model access under item-based controls uncertain?
A3: It is unclear how user access to models equates to a release of EAR software or technology to any foreign nationals except those working at Anthropic. The models or model weights are not being exported. Foreign nationals are instead accessing those models on servers operated by Anthropic. It is also unclear if the exchange of information or outputs from an AI model could be considered an export under the EAR unless it was released as software or technology as defined in the EAR.
This is precisely why the House of Representatives passed the Remote Access Security Act--because ECRA does not authorize regulating remote access. The act defines "remote access" as
access on a purposeful, knowing, reckless, or negligent basis to an item subject to the jurisdiction of the United States . . . by a foreign person through a network connection, including the internet or a cloud computing service, from a location other than where the item is physically located if . . . the use of the item could pose a serious risk to the national security or foreign policy of the United States.
Additionally, as discussed in Q1 above, the EAR only gives Commerce the authority to issue a letter imposing a worldwide license requirement in specific circumstances, which do not include military-intelligence end uses/users.
Q4: Why is Commerce's authority to control model access worldwide under U.S. person's controls uncertain?
A4: Anthropic is performing a service by allowing access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5, and service controls on U.S. persons are clearly within the scope of the EAR when they pertain to either WMD or military-intelligence end uses/users. However, the EAR only allows Commerce to impose a worldwide license requirement on U.S. persons' activities when support enables chemical and biological weapons end uses. While cyber-attacks could conceivably relate to military-intelligence activities, such service controls apply to only a small number of adversarial nations.
Commerce could, through the federal rulemaking process, issue a regulation implementing its authority in ECRA to impose worldwide "is informed" controls for emerging technologies in a manner that includes U.S. persons controls, but no such regulation currently exists.
Q5: How can Anthropic restore access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5?
A5: From a regulatory perspective, Anthropic has three options. The first involves Commerce's retraction of the license requirement based upon negotiations demonstrating that the identified vulnerability has been resolved. This is the most likely path, and Anthropic has reportedly already met with White House officials to find a way forward.
The second involves legal action contesting the regulatory action on either (1) the basis for action or (2) the scope of countries covered. A legal action would seek to ensure that the imposition of the license requirement is consistent with Commerce's ability to impose a worldwide license requirement on an individual company. As noted above, Commerce has wide latitude to impose license requirements on individual companies, but the basis for such action is tied to rationale that can constrain the scope of countries impacted. Otherwise, Commerce worldwide license requirements must be imposed through regulatory action.
Finally, Anthropic could seek to restore access within the bounds of the June 12 action, though it is unlikely to do so. This would require conducting identity and citizenship verification for all users seeking access. While burdensome, the real difficulty would be obtaining deemed export licenses for Anthropic's foreign national staff and for global end users.
Q6: What are the implications of the controls on Anthropic for other companies, and for U.S. AI innovation?
A6: While the export control at issue only applies to Anthropic, the confusion over BIS's authority to impose it raises uncertainty for all of U.S. industry. Underlying assumptions on what BIS can and will control are now in question. A senior White House official quoted anonymously in Politico said that "export controls were a last resort" to resolve security concerns, but now that export controls have been used to control model access, every company must consider the possibility of such controls being used again.
This action by BIS is likely to broadly undermine goals for global adoption of U.S. models. Fable/Mythos outperforms other existing models on a wide variety of standard AI benchmarks, likely making it the most powerful AI model ever released, with independent verification of its ability to identify complex multistage attacks. Yet by all accounts, the vulnerability driving BIS action is not restricted to Fable and is inherent to all modern language models. In the short term, this action is likely to drive some portion of Anthropic's customers to other AI labs with models more powerful than Anthropic's currently accessible technology. In the long term, however, the uncertainty over durable access to any specific U.S. AI model is likely to drive potential foreign customers to consider options they deem more reliable, including use of small, open-weight models that can run on locally owned and operated hardware.
For example, European politicians have cited the controls as further evidence of the need for sovereign AI, with dependency on U.S. AI seen as a supply chain vulnerability. The lack of process and standards for U.S. companies risks creating an impossible bar--that the U.S. government will only allow the public release of models that cannot be jailbroken, even in theory. Furthermore, the inaccessibility of the most powerful AI models provides an opportunity for China to make inroads on international adoption of its models, which lag the U.S. by 7 months on average.
Q7: What other paths could the U.S. government take to address security concerns with AI models?
A7: Export controls have a role to play in controlling access to certain physical components in the AI supply chain, most notably the computing capacity needed to train and operate advanced models. But export controls, at least on their own, are not a clear fit for resolving national security concerns for how models are being accessed and used. New legislation could open more effective approaches to addressing security risks, including expanded roles for other agencies or even creation of a new body with entirely new authorities.
Prior to last week's events, the U.S. government's regulatory approach to AI had focused on the development of voluntary guidelines and best practices. The most recent example of this is President Trump's June 2 executive order on "Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security." This EO, which was also largely a response to the fears raised by Mythos for U.S. cybersecurity, establishes a strictly voluntary framework for AI developers to collaborate with the government prior to releasing new models, which largely mirrors a practice that U.S. AI developers had already agreed to.
Analysts and industry representatives have recommended the formation of a new government agency to oversee the most advanced AI models as well as some form of licensing regime. At a 2023 congressional hearing, for example, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recommended that Congress should form a new agency to issue (and deny and revoke) licenses for the development of frontier AI models to ensure compliance with safety standards. This idea has largely been dormant since then; the Trump administration briefly reconsidered this idea when putting together its June 2 executive order before ultimately scrapping it for an approach more in line with their broadly deregulatory posture toward the AI industry.
In the absence of binding federal action, states may offer a blueprint for addressing AI safety and security. Last year, California and New York passed landmark AI laws that, while they differ in many fine details, both require AI developers to publish safety and governance frameworks and report critical safety incidents; a similar bill is now headed to the Illinois governor's desk. While these bills lack mechanisms for blocking release of models, their focus on transparency into development practices incentivizes robust safety practices and signals emerging consensus on core best practices that can inform a federal approach. State AI legislation has been contentious at the federal level, prompting both legislative and executive attempts at preempting or blocking state laws, but key elements from these bills have also appeared in Congressional proposals, including a recent discussion draft of the Great American AI Act from Representatives Jay Obernolte (R-CA) and Lori Trahan (D-MA).
* * *
Kate Koren is deputy director of the Economics Program and Scholl Chair in International Business at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C.
Kevin Kurland is a senior technical expert (non-resident) with the CSIS Economics Program and Scholl Chair in International Business.
Aalok Mehta is the director of the Wadhwani AI Center at CSIS.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/department-commerce-restricted-access-anthropics-latest-models-what-comes-next
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: Southbound Diplomacy - Assessing Taiwan's 'Integrated Diplomacy' on the 10th Anniversary of the New Southbound Policy
WASHINGTON, June 17 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on June 16, 2026, by Henrietta Levin, senior fellow with the Freeman Chair in China Studies, and former intern Daniel Castro Bonilla:* * *
Southbound Diplomacy: Assessing Taiwan's "Integrated Diplomacy" on the 10th Anniversary of the New Southbound Policy
Shortly after taking office in 2024, Taiwan Foreign Minister Lin Chia-lung announced a new strategy to navigate the volatile geopolitical landscape. Termed "integrated diplomacy", the strategy declared that "every citizen will be a diplomat ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 17 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on June 16, 2026, by Henrietta Levin, senior fellow with the Freeman Chair in China Studies, and former intern Daniel Castro Bonilla: * * * Southbound Diplomacy: Assessing Taiwan's "Integrated Diplomacy" on the 10th Anniversary of the New Southbound Policy Shortly after taking office in 2024, Taiwan Foreign Minister Lin Chia-lung announced a new strategy to navigate the volatile geopolitical landscape. Termed "integrated diplomacy", the strategy declared that "every citizen will be a diplomatand every ministry will be a foreign ministry." Its whole-of-society approach emphasized three pillars: (1) values-based diplomacy, (2) alliance diplomacy, and (3) economic diplomacy.
Though global in scope, the success of the "integrated diplomacy" strategy can be assessed in large part by its impact in Taiwan's own neighborhood, and particularly in South and Southeast Asia. Since then-President Tsai Ing-wen launched the New Southbound Policy (NSP) in 2016, these regions have steadily grown in importance for Taiwan. In 2025, President Lai extended NSP under the auspices of "NSP+," placing greater emphasis on Taiwan's advanced technologies and people-to-people exchanges. Though some observers have concluded the Lai administration is now deemphasizing the NSP, the policy's geographic focus offers a useful lens for evaluating how integrated diplomacy can advance Taiwan's international position--especially now, as the NSP marks its 10-year anniversary.
Unlike with G7 democracies, for whom shared values and geopolitical alignment can facilitate cooperation with Taiwan, the NSP region is predominantly composed of nations unwilling to challenge Beijing on Taipei's behalf, notwithstanding their deep commercial and people-to-people ties with Taiwan. Stakeholders in South and Southeast Asia are generally less interested in appeals to democracy than in tangible economic opportunities and human capital development. These nations would be deeply affected by a cross-strait conflict, but most see no role for themselves in preventing such a crisis.
In this context, it is unsurprising that integrated diplomacy's "economic diplomacy" pillar has played a leading role in deepening Taiwan's regional ties. At the same time, "alliance diplomacy" has the potential to deliver important gains with regional countries whose geopolitical alignment with Taiwan is strongest, and "values-based diplomacy" can support Taiwan's broader regional integration by building trust with civil society and the next generation of leaders.
Defining Integrated Diplomacy: Values, Alliances, and Economics
Foreign Minister Lin has described integrated diplomacy as an effort to generate momentum globally, helping the island seize "the diplomatic offensive" and pursue "proactive" engagements. To achieve its overarching goal of expanding Taiwan's international space, the strategy aims to "(1) deepen international connections through democratic values, (2) strengthen regional security through bilateral and multilateral cooperation, and (3) build [Taiwan] into an economic powerhouse." The strategy's three pillars--values, alliances, and economics--are intended to promote three core concepts: democracy, peace, and prosperity. The Lai administration has stylized these objectives under the same acronym as the ruling party, DPP.
The strategy's first pillar is values-based diplomacy. It seeks to deepen Taiwan's connections with the international community by championing democracy, human rights, freedom, and the rule of law. Moving beyond bilateral diplomacy, which can be difficult for Taiwan to access, this pillar seeks to empower civil society to share Taiwan's democratic achievements and build grassroots international connections. The pillar also positions Taiwan, which President Lai described as "ground zero" for disinformation, on the frontline of defending global democracy against hybrid and cognitive threats from authoritarian regimes.
The second pillar, alliance diplomacy, focuses on cooperating with like-minded nations to preserve the cross-strait status quo and, more broadly, peace in the Indo-Pacific. This requires deeper political and security cooperation with Taiwan's closest partners, but the strategy also envisions cooperation to combat Beijing's legal warfare against Taipei. As the People's Republic of China (PRC) intensifies pressure on third countries to endorse its vision for "reunification" and isolate Taiwan, Taipei aims to work with partners to counter Beijing's narratives, reaffirm the legitimacy of its international engagements, and preserve the cross-strait status quo.
The third pillar, economic diplomacy, leverages Taiwan's advantages in "Five Trusted Industry Sectors": semiconductors, artificial intelligence, military, security and surveillance, and next-generation communications. It presents Taiwanese capital, talent, and technology-enabled solutions as key assets in its global outreach. The economic pillar also aims to construct resilient, "non-red" (i.e., non-PRC) supply chains. This vision has been pursued through a variety of initiatives, including the Diplomatic Allies Prosperity Project, cross-ministerial task forces, talent development exchange programs, and specialized financing to help Taiwanese businesses expand overseas and stimulate industrial development in partner nations.
Economic Diplomacy: The Foundation for Regional Engagement
Economic diplomacy serves as the foundation of Taiwan's engagement in South and Southeast Asia. By delivering tangible economic benefits to its partners and embedding itself in their models of economic growth, Taiwan can generate shared prosperity and deepen economic interdependence. In doing so, it can foster a material self-interest among NSP partners in maintaining stability across the Taiwan Strait.
The economic impact of integrated diplomacy can be viewed as a continuation of a decade-long economic diversification effort formalized through the NSP, which sought to create a "sense of economic community" with NSP partners. It encouraged two-way exchanges in economic relations and talent and called on Taiwan's private sector to adopt its own "New Southbound" strategies when developing business plans. Integrated diplomacy's goals of increasing diversified trade flows and building resilient supply chains can complement these existing efforts.
Trade statistics demonstrate that Taiwan has already made significant progress in diversifying away from the PRC market and deepening economic relations with NSP partners. In 2025, Taiwan's trade with Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) members surged 32.5 percent to $181.5 billion, and its trade with India reached a historic high of $12.5 billion. Yet Taiwan's exports to Southeast Asia and India far outpace its imports, a pattern also evident in the island's global trade. Skyrocketing exports of integrated circuits, predominantly semiconductors, can partially explain Taiwan's growing trade surplus with NSP partners. For example, integrated circuits went from 1.6 percent of Taiwan's exports to India in 2016 to 51 percent in 2025, reflecting a structural shift in bilateral trade as India positions itself as a key node in technology supply chains.
* * *
Figure 1: Taiwan-ASEAN Trade, 2016-2025
Figure 2: Taiwan-India Trade, 2016-2025
Figure 3: Taiwan's Year-over-Year Trade Growth Rate with ASEAN+India and China
* * *
Taiwan's growing foreign direct investment in South and Southeast Asia also aligns with integrated diplomacy's prioritization of supply chain diversification. Investment from Taiwan in the PRC has steadily declined over the past decade, and in 2025 alone it fell by 59 percent. This capital has been redirected, in part, toward supply chains that lessen reliance on the PRC in South and Southeast Asia.
* * *
Figure 4: Taiwan's Outbound Foreign Direct Investment by Destination, 2016-2025
* * *
Recognizing that resilient supply chains depend on human capital, integrated diplomacy also seeks to expand educational and people-to-people exchanges. Initiatives such as the NSP Elite Study Program and the International Industrial Talents Education Special Program actively recruit talent from South and Southeast Asia, though these programs remain modest in scale. In 2025, Taiwan awarded scholarships to 283 students from 37 countries to study in Taiwan. It also facilitated exchanges and training opportunities for 630 students from 68 countries in strategic fields such as semiconductors and public health.
Other regional projects have advanced integrated diplomacy's goal of exporting smart solutions in a manner that supports regional economic integration. In August 2025, Taiwan launched the Taiwan-Philippines Economic Corridor (TPEC), through which Taiwan began to align its semiconductor and smart agriculture investments with the preexisting U.S.-Japan-Philippines Luzon Economic Corridor. By synchronizing these efforts, TPEC aims to embed Taiwan within a broader minilateral economic security architecture. In Vietnam, meanwhile, the Taiwan Smart Healthcare Alliance, a coalition of Taiwanese technology enterprises, has introduced telemedicine and surgical imaging solutions that help address Vietnam's shortage of healthcare professionals. In Indonesia, Taiwan has provided smart agriculture solutions in areas such as Karawang, deploying satellite monitoring, AI, drone-assisted field management, and other advanced technologies.
Regional partners have generally welcomed Taiwan's investments and technology projects, and several have signed bilateral economic agreements with the island. For example in 2024, Taiwan and Thailand signed the Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, following earlier agreements between Taiwan and the Philippines, India, and Vietnam. In 2025, Taiwan and Indonesia signed a trade promotion memorandum of understanding, covering medical equipment and digital services. These initiatives leverage Taiwan's specialized industrial expertise to promote mutual prosperity and resilience.
Alliance Diplomacy: Common Threat Perceptions Foster Cooperation
Most countries in South and Southeast Asia remain cautious about deepening security or political ties with Taiwan, for fear of drawing Beijing's ire. Notwithstanding these headwinds, integrated diplomacy seeks to build broad international partnerships. To that end, in 2025 Taiwan launched the Double-12 Initiative, a framework for expanding Taiwan's diplomatic focus beyond its 12 official partners to 12 additional nations that are crucial to the island's future, including the Philippines and India.
Taiwan's partnership with the Philippines bears enormous potential, in part due to the shared risks that Manila and Taipei must manage. The Philippines' northernmost point lies less than 100 miles from Taiwan, making it difficult for Manila to avoid the impact of a cross-strait conflict. Under President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr., the Philippines has signaled a newfound enthusiasm for expanding cooperation with Taiwan beyond commercial, labor, and people-to-people ties. This has provided Taipei a unique opportunity to draw on its alliance diplomacy tool kit within Southeast Asia. Since 2025, the Philippines has removed restrictions on engagement between Philippine and Taiwan officials, received Foreign Minister Lin in the Philippines as the head of a business delegation, and hosted Taiwan representatives for discussions on future coast guard cooperation, including intelligence sharing and capacity-building.
India also occupies a special position within the integrated diplomacy and NSP frameworks. Driven largely by its strategic rivalry and territorial disputes with the PRC, India's relationship with Taiwan has expanded beyond the commercial domain, and unofficial diplomatic engagement has increased. In 2024, for example, Taiwan established a new Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in Mumbai. Parliamentary diplomacy has also grown; for example, a cross-party delegation of Indian members of parliament visited Taiwan for a formal six-day program in May 2026. This deepening of institutional ties combats PRC efforts to isolate Taiwan internationally--a key goal of the alliance diplomacy pillar.
In addition, India has carefully refrained from endorsing Beijing's One China Principle. Following a 2025 visit by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, a Chinese readout claimed India agreed that "Taiwan is a part of China," but India's Ministry of External Affairs swiftly contradicted this. This is especially significant for Taiwan's international standing because of India's leadership role in the Global South.
Values Diplomacy: From Values-Based to Values-Added
When tailored for a regional context, integrated diplomacy's values-based pillar offers further opportunities for engagement. Appeals to shared democratic values will gain little traction among regional governments, most of which are unwilling to frame their relationship with Taiwan in ideological terms. However, Taipei has taken steps to recalibrate this pillar to instead demonstrate that its democratic system can deliver tangible value for its partners. In its 2025 Annual Review report, Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs changed the name of integrated diplomacy's first pillar from "values-based diplomacy" to "values-added diplomacy".
This update highlights the practical utility of democratic principles, recasting Taiwan's values as a source of transparency, reliability, and innovation. Whereas the PRC weaponizes economic interdependence to punish countries that defy its will, Taiwan links its democratic governance to its capacity to anchor reliable supply chains. In building the digital economies of the future, Taiwan also promotes concepts such as "digital solidarity" and "clean networks," presenting itself as a safer and more trustworthy option for addressing the critical infrastructure needs of NSP partners.
People-to-people ties represent another concrete opportunity for Taiwan's values-based diplomacy to deliver for its partners. The Lai administration has extended visa-free entry for citizens of Thailand, Brunei, and the Philippines through July 2026, complementing existing arrangements with other ASEAN countries such as Singapore and Malaysia. As depicted in Figure 5, visitor arrivals to Taiwan from the PRC have remained low since the pandemic, while ASEAN arrivals have steadily increased, rebounding to their pre-pandemic peak in 2025. Initiatives such as the International Youth Ambassadors Exchange Program and the expansion of international NGO networks in Taiwan can also cultivate familiarity with and trust in the island among the next generation of leaders.
* * *
Figure 5: Visitor Arrivals to Taiwan, 2016-2025
* * *
Over the long term, people-to-people exchanges can help to build influential constituencies in countries in the region where personal experience may translate into broader support for friendly relations with Taiwan. But Taiwan's ability to sustain these gains ultimately depends on the quality of foreign visitors' experience on the island. Discrimination against Southeast Asian migrant workers, for example, can easily undermine the credibility of Taiwan's values-based messaging.
Policy Recommendations
While it remains too early to deliver a definitive evaluate of Taiwan's integrated diplomacy, the 10th anniversary of the NSP provides an important opportunity to assess its trajectory in Taiwan's neighborhood. Moving forward, Taiwan may consider the following policy options to ensure integrated diplomacy succeeds in South and Southeast Asia, accelerating implementation of NSP+ and advancing Taiwan's position in this critical region.
* Leverage asymmetric advantages and stack resources with like-minded partners. Unable to match the scale of the PRC's state-directed capital, Taiwan can instead draw on on its asymmetric advantages, including the Lai administration's "Five Trusted Industry Sectors," in its regional engagement. Taipei can also intensify efforts to pursue joint financing models with like-minded partners and explore complementary overseas investments, thereby offering NSP partners more attractive investment packages.
* Pursue minilateral economic arrangements. Building on existing efforts to align the TPEC with the Luzon Economic Corridor, Taiwan can explore other opportunities to align its investments in semiconductors and smart manufacturing with U.S. or Japanese regional initiatives, thus supporting the development of key supply chains outside of the PRC.
* Establish public-private co-investment funds for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). While Taiwan's large technology firms can easily navigate foreign markets, its SMEs may need government support to expand into South and Southeast Asia. The Executive Yuan's economic task force could deploy a specialized "digital new southbound" financing vehicle to lower entry barriers for SMEs offering development-oriented investments in South and Southeast Asia.
* Institutionalize cooperation with the Philippines. The strategic momentum generated under the Marcos administration offers a unique window to expand maritime and security cooperation, but Taiwan must also work to deliver greater economic value for the Philippines, including through TPEC. Deeper economic ties will help insulate the entire relationship from potential political shifts in Manila ahead of the Philippines' 2028 elections.
* Double down on India. India's inclusion in Taiwan's Double-12 framework reflects renewed momentum in the bilateral relationship, but this cannot be taken for granted. Taipei can link integrated diplomacy with India's "Act East" and "Make in India" initiatives by expanding engineering talent pipelines, incentivizing Taiwanese firms to establish joint R&D centers, expanding opportunities for Indian students and professionals to study Chinese language, and implementing the 2024 memorandum of understanding on labor cooperation.
* Tailor values-based messaging to regional realities. Celebration of Taiwan's democratic values is unlikely to resonate widely in the region, but the ways in which Taiwan's political system make it a strong and reliable economic partner may have broader appeal. Furthermore, Taiwan can leverage its technological expertise and its experience as a democracy combating PRC information operations to help regional partners address similar challenges.
* * *
Henrietta Levin is a senior fellow with the Freeman Chair in China Studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. Daniel Castro Bonilla is a former intern with the Freeman Chair at CSIS.
This commentary is made possible by support from the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/southbound-diplomacy-assessing-taiwans-integrated-diplomacy-10th-anniversary-new
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI's Kenneth Blackwell on Today's Primary Elections Across the Country
WASHINGTON, June 17 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on June 16, 2026:* * *
AFPI's Kenneth Blackwell on Today's Primary Elections Across the Country
America First Policy Institute (AFPI) Secure Elections Chairman J. Kenneth Blackwell today urges Americans to head to the polls as voters in Oklahoma, the District of Columbia, Alabama, Georgia, and California cast ballots in primaries, runoffs, and a special election, which will help set the choices voters face this November. He stated:
"Self-government is not a spectator sport. It belongs to the citizens ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 17 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on June 16, 2026: * * * AFPI's Kenneth Blackwell on Today's Primary Elections Across the Country America First Policy Institute (AFPI) Secure Elections Chairman J. Kenneth Blackwell today urges Americans to head to the polls as voters in Oklahoma, the District of Columbia, Alabama, Georgia, and California cast ballots in primaries, runoffs, and a special election, which will help set the choices voters face this November. He stated: "Self-government is not a spectator sport. It belongs to the citizenswho show up.
Primaries are where the direction of a party, and ultimately the country, is decided. I would urge every voter to look past the noise and ask a simple question: which candidate will actually stand up for the values they believe in? Vote your values and vote for the men and women who will defend an America First agenda when it counts.
Our elections only work when people believe in them, and belief is earned at the ballot box. Every honest vote strengthens the trust that holds this country together. That trust is worth defending, and the surest way to defend it is to take part in it.
So, find your polling place, make a plan, and cast your ballot today. The future of this country has always belonged to the Americans willing to show up for it."
Learn more about AFPI's work on Election Integrity here (https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/election-integrity-top/secure-elections).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpis-kenneth-blackwell-on-todays-primary-elections-across-the-country
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI Releases New Report on Benefits of DGAs for Health & Farmers
WASHINGTON, June 17 (TNSrpt) -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on June 16, 2026:* * *
AFPI Releases New Report on Benefits of DGAs for Health & Farmers
Today, the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) released a new Issue Brief highlighting the impact of the updated Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Titled "Eat Real Food: How the Dietary Guidelines Help Make Americans Healthy," the report details how the Trump Administration's nutrition reset is aligning more than two billion taxpayer-funded meals annually with gold-standard nutritional science, emphasizing ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 17 (TNSrpt) -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on June 16, 2026: * * * AFPI Releases New Report on Benefits of DGAs for Health & Farmers Today, the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) released a new Issue Brief highlighting the impact of the updated Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Titled "Eat Real Food: How the Dietary Guidelines Help Make Americans Healthy," the report details how the Trump Administration's nutrition reset is aligning more than two billion taxpayer-funded meals annually with gold-standard nutritional science, emphasizingreal, nutrient-dense foods like high-quality protein, healthy fats, whole milk, fruits, and vegetables.
The report, and the importance of nutrition in maintaining long-term health, was discussed by AFPI senior director of Healthy America Policy Hannah Anderson today at AFPI's "Healthy America" event in Charlotte, Michigan, featuring U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and U.S. Representative Tom Barrett. To watch the remarks, click here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oud7_GFzd00).
"A healthier America starts with better nutrition information, access to fresh, whole foods, and greater transparency about what's in the meals we feed our children," said Anderson. "Through the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the Trump Administration is ensuring that families across the country are empowered with the information and resources they need to take back their health."
The updated guidelines are already driving meaningful change across federal programs. Under the new rules, public schools will serving healthier, nutrient-dense meals to children, SNAP retailers must now stock double the amount of whole foods, and 22 states have restricted junk food purchases with taxpayer dollars. Whole milk will return to school and child nutrition programs in November thanks to the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act. These changes extend to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of War, and beyond.
"These guidelines represent the most significant reset of federal nutrition policy in decades," said T.J. Wilson, deputy director of Rural Policy at AFPI. "By prioritizing real food produced by American farmers and ranchers over defaulting to ultra-processed products often sourced from far away, we are undoing decades of damage to American producers and strengthening rural economies for years to come."
This shift supports the goals of the Farmers First Agenda by increasing demand for American-grown, nutrient-dense foods and reducing reliance on ultra-processed items.
* * *
REPORT: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/assets/uploads/files/Eat_Real_Food-_How_the_Dietary_Guidelines_Help_Make_Americans_Healthy.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-releases-new-report-on-benefits-of-dgas-for-health-farmers
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI Commends USDA Ranchers-First Grazing Directive
WASHINGTON, June 17 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on June 16, 2026:* * *
AFPI Commends USDA Ranchers-First Grazing Directive
On Friday, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Brooke Rollins announced a directive that has been issued to all U.S. Forest Service (USFS) employees to refocus the Service on its multiple-use mandate for USFS-managed lands.
This directive emphasizes the importance of grazing on National Forests and Grasslands, and provides clear, pointed direction to the USFS employees who work directly with our nation's ranchers. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 17 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on June 16, 2026: * * * AFPI Commends USDA Ranchers-First Grazing Directive On Friday, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Brooke Rollins announced a directive that has been issued to all U.S. Forest Service (USFS) employees to refocus the Service on its multiple-use mandate for USFS-managed lands. This directive emphasizes the importance of grazing on National Forests and Grasslands, and provides clear, pointed direction to the USFS employees who work directly with our nation's ranchers.It will help to reverse decades of bureaucratic overreach and lawfare aimed at ranchers and deliver meaningful economic support to rural communities that depend on federal land grazing.
"For centuries, American ranchers have been faithful stewards of the land, utilizing federally-managed land to feed their communities and the nation," said Kip Tom, chair for Rural Policy at the America First Policy Institute.
"The new directive represents a long-overdue shift from bureaucratic delays and regulatory hostility to partnership and common sense. I commend Secretary Rollins for putting rural Americans first."
The actions outlined in this directive strongly advance the core pillars of AFPI's Farmers First Agenda: driving rural prosperity, right-sizing and reorienting government, and generating responsible nutrition policy.
To read AFPI's Farmers First Agenda, click here (https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/policy-areas/farmers-first-agenda).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-commends-usda-ranchers-first-grazing-directive
[Category: ThinkTank]