Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Ifo Institute: German Industry Has Lost Nearly Half a Million Jobs Since 2019
MUNICH, Germany, Oct. 20 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release:
* * *
19 October 2026
German Industry Has Lost Nearly Half a Million Jobs Since 2019
Since 2019, German industry has lost nearly half a million jobs subject to social insurance contributions, according to a new study by ifo Dresden. At the end of 2025, there were 496,000 fewer people working there than at the start of 2019, a drop of 7.1 percent. In the service sector, on the other hand, more than 2.2 million new jobs were created, primarily in health and social services, and in public administration. "Germany is undergoing ... Show Full Article MUNICH, Germany, Oct. 20 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release: * * * 19 October 2026 German Industry Has Lost Nearly Half a Million Jobs Since 2019 Since 2019, German industry has lost nearly half a million jobs subject to social insurance contributions, according to a new study by ifo Dresden. At the end of 2025, there were 496,000 fewer people working there than at the start of 2019, a drop of 7.1 percent. In the service sector, on the other hand, more than 2.2 million new jobs were created, primarily in health and social services, and in public administration. "Germany is undergoingan accelerated structural shift. Ironically, the very sectors that have sustained our prosperity up to now are shrinking," says Joachim Ragnitz, Managing Director ifo Dresden. "The new jobs are for the most part not being created where Germany is especially productive and innovative. That may slow down our growth potential in the future."
"Employment is shrinking in almost all industrial sectors, which is likely a result of declining competitiveness, particularly vis-a-vis China. Traditional German core sectors, such as the automotive industry and mechanical engineering, are particularly hard hit," says Ragnitz. The automotive industry and its suppliers cut 123,500 jobs, a drop of 13 percent. Manufacturers of metal products cut 115,600 jobs, while 64,500 were cut in mechanical engineering. These three sectors account for around 60 percent of the cuts, according to Ragnitz's calculations. The temporary employment sector is losing 243,000 workers, many of whom worked in manufacturing. If these are included, industry actually lost around 628,000 jobs.
"Service providers, on the other hand, saw strong growth, with 391,000 new jobs in healthcare, and 357,000 in social services, including nursing homes. The main reason is the aging population," says Ragnitz. The number of employees subject to social insurance contributions in public administration grew by 329,000, partly because positions vacated by retiring civil servants were filled by other employees. Among private service providers, IT companies saw the strongest growth. The number of employees with vocational training fell by 252,000. By contrast, 1.8 million new jobs were created for academics.
All German states apart from Hamburg are feeling the effects of industrial decline. In the East, the decline is somewhat steeper, at minus 8.4 percent, than in the West, where it stands at minus 6.8 percent. In Eastern Germany, the only new jobs in the automotive industry were in Brandenburg, thanks to the Tesla factory in Grunheide. In Thuringia and Saxony-Anhalt, overall employment actually declined.
The study compares the reference dates of December 31, 2018 and December 31, 2025. It uses employment statistics from Germany's Federal Employment Agency, which cover all employees subject to social security contributions. They do not include the self-employed, civil servants, and those with mini-jobs.
2026 Article in Journal
Sektoraler Strukturwandel in Deutschland 2019-2025: Was die Beschaftigungsstatistik verrat
Joachim Ragnitz
ifo Dresden berichtet, 2026, 33, Nr. 05 04-11
Learn more (https://www.ifo.de/en/publications/2026/article-journal/sektoraler-strukturwandel-deutschland-2019-2025-beschaeftigungsstatistik)
* * *
2026 Journal (Complete Issue)
ifo Dresden berichtet 05/2026
Learn more (https://www.ifo.de/en/publications/2026/journal-complete-issue/ifo-dresden-berichtet-052026)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2026-10-19/german-industry-has-lost-nearly-half-million-jobs-2019
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
19 October 2026
German Industry Has Lost Nearly Half a Million Jobs Since 2019
Since 2019, German industry has lost nearly half a million jobs subject to social insurance contributions, according to a new study by ifo Dresden. At the end of 2025, there were 496,000 fewer people working there than at the start of 2019, a drop of 7.1 percent. In the service sector, on the other hand, more than 2.2 million new jobs were created, primarily in health and social services, and in public administration. "Germany is undergoing ... Show Full Article MUNICH, Germany, Oct. 20 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release: * * * 19 October 2026 German Industry Has Lost Nearly Half a Million Jobs Since 2019 Since 2019, German industry has lost nearly half a million jobs subject to social insurance contributions, according to a new study by ifo Dresden. At the end of 2025, there were 496,000 fewer people working there than at the start of 2019, a drop of 7.1 percent. In the service sector, on the other hand, more than 2.2 million new jobs were created, primarily in health and social services, and in public administration. "Germany is undergoingan accelerated structural shift. Ironically, the very sectors that have sustained our prosperity up to now are shrinking," says Joachim Ragnitz, Managing Director ifo Dresden. "The new jobs are for the most part not being created where Germany is especially productive and innovative. That may slow down our growth potential in the future."
"Employment is shrinking in almost all industrial sectors, which is likely a result of declining competitiveness, particularly vis-a-vis China. Traditional German core sectors, such as the automotive industry and mechanical engineering, are particularly hard hit," says Ragnitz. The automotive industry and its suppliers cut 123,500 jobs, a drop of 13 percent. Manufacturers of metal products cut 115,600 jobs, while 64,500 were cut in mechanical engineering. These three sectors account for around 60 percent of the cuts, according to Ragnitz's calculations. The temporary employment sector is losing 243,000 workers, many of whom worked in manufacturing. If these are included, industry actually lost around 628,000 jobs.
"Service providers, on the other hand, saw strong growth, with 391,000 new jobs in healthcare, and 357,000 in social services, including nursing homes. The main reason is the aging population," says Ragnitz. The number of employees subject to social insurance contributions in public administration grew by 329,000, partly because positions vacated by retiring civil servants were filled by other employees. Among private service providers, IT companies saw the strongest growth. The number of employees with vocational training fell by 252,000. By contrast, 1.8 million new jobs were created for academics.
All German states apart from Hamburg are feeling the effects of industrial decline. In the East, the decline is somewhat steeper, at minus 8.4 percent, than in the West, where it stands at minus 6.8 percent. In Eastern Germany, the only new jobs in the automotive industry were in Brandenburg, thanks to the Tesla factory in Grunheide. In Thuringia and Saxony-Anhalt, overall employment actually declined.
The study compares the reference dates of December 31, 2018 and December 31, 2025. It uses employment statistics from Germany's Federal Employment Agency, which cover all employees subject to social security contributions. They do not include the self-employed, civil servants, and those with mini-jobs.
2026 Article in Journal
Sektoraler Strukturwandel in Deutschland 2019-2025: Was die Beschaftigungsstatistik verrat
Joachim Ragnitz
ifo Dresden berichtet, 2026, 33, Nr. 05 04-11
Learn more (https://www.ifo.de/en/publications/2026/article-journal/sektoraler-strukturwandel-deutschland-2019-2025-beschaeftigungsstatistik)
* * *
2026 Journal (Complete Issue)
ifo Dresden berichtet 05/2026
Learn more (https://www.ifo.de/en/publications/2026/journal-complete-issue/ifo-dresden-berichtet-052026)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2026-10-19/german-industry-has-lost-nearly-half-million-jobs-2019
[Category: ThinkTank]
Heritage Foundation Welcomes William Ruger as Distinguished Fellow
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 -- The Heritage Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
The Heritage Foundation Welcomes William Ruger as Distinguished Fellow
Oct 19, 2026
WASHINGTON--Today, The Heritage Foundation welcomed William P. Ruger as a Distinguished Fellow, strengthening the team of conservative scholars, policy experts, and strategic thinkers working to help usher in America's Golden Age.
Ruger brings to Heritage a rare combination of service, scholarship, and leadership from across the military, academia, public policy, and the intelligence community. His career includes service ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 -- The Heritage Foundation issued the following news release: * * * The Heritage Foundation Welcomes William Ruger as Distinguished Fellow Oct 19, 2026 WASHINGTON--Today, The Heritage Foundation welcomed William P. Ruger as a Distinguished Fellow, strengthening the team of conservative scholars, policy experts, and strategic thinkers working to help usher in America's Golden Age. Ruger brings to Heritage a rare combination of service, scholarship, and leadership from across the military, academia, public policy, and the intelligence community. His career includes serviceas a U.S. Navy Reserve officer and Afghanistan War veteran, professor of political science, president of the American Institute for Economic Research, and senior intelligence official responsible for the National Intelligence Council and the President's Daily Brief.
Dr. Kevin Roberts, president of The Heritage Foundation and Heritage Action, welcomed Mr. Ruger by saying:
"Will's extensive experience across a wide range of policy areas makes him a tremendous addition to what is already the best team of scholars and policy experts in the business! His expertise will strengthen our policy work and help expand the reach and influence of Heritage's ideas in Washington and state legislatures across the country."
Derrick Morgan, executive vice president of The Heritage Foundation, remarked:
"Will Ruger's experience in uniform, teaching the next generation, leading a respected free-market think tank, and preparing the President's Daily Brief will inform his work at Heritage to help develop thoughtful, serious, and ultimately unified policy solutions. We are thrilled to welcome him as a Distinguished Fellow."
In his role at Heritage, Ruger will contribute to policy work, bringing the perspective of a scholar-practitioner. His appointment reflects Heritage's continued commitment to assembling the strongest team in the conservative movement.
"I'm excited to join the great team at Heritage at such an important juncture in the history of our country," Ruger noted. "If America is to remain the greatest nation in the world, conservative ideas and values must win the future just as they have shaped our past, and I look forward to helping Heritage harness them creatively and thoughtfully to meet the many challenges our country faces ahead."
Before joining Heritage, Ruger served as Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Mission Integration, where he helped lead collaborative integration across the intelligence community and supported intelligence products for senior policymakers. He previously served as president of the American Institute for Economic Research, vice president for research and policy at the Charles Koch Institute, and vice president for foreign policy at Stand Together.
In 2020, Ruger was nominated by President Trump for the position of United States Ambassador to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. He was appointed by the president to the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board at the U.S. Department of State in 2020, serving from 2020 to 2023.
Ruger was an associate professor of political science at Texas State University and an adjunct assistant professor at the University of Texas at Austin's LBJ School of Public Affairs. He earned his Ph.D. in politics from Brandeis University and his A.B. from the College of William and Mary. His scholarship has appeared in leading academic journals, and he is the author of Milton Friedman and co-author of Freedom in the 50 States.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.heritage.org/press/the-heritage-foundation-welcomes-william-ruger-distinguished-fellow
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
The Heritage Foundation Welcomes William Ruger as Distinguished Fellow
Oct 19, 2026
WASHINGTON--Today, The Heritage Foundation welcomed William P. Ruger as a Distinguished Fellow, strengthening the team of conservative scholars, policy experts, and strategic thinkers working to help usher in America's Golden Age.
Ruger brings to Heritage a rare combination of service, scholarship, and leadership from across the military, academia, public policy, and the intelligence community. His career includes service ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 -- The Heritage Foundation issued the following news release: * * * The Heritage Foundation Welcomes William Ruger as Distinguished Fellow Oct 19, 2026 WASHINGTON--Today, The Heritage Foundation welcomed William P. Ruger as a Distinguished Fellow, strengthening the team of conservative scholars, policy experts, and strategic thinkers working to help usher in America's Golden Age. Ruger brings to Heritage a rare combination of service, scholarship, and leadership from across the military, academia, public policy, and the intelligence community. His career includes serviceas a U.S. Navy Reserve officer and Afghanistan War veteran, professor of political science, president of the American Institute for Economic Research, and senior intelligence official responsible for the National Intelligence Council and the President's Daily Brief.
Dr. Kevin Roberts, president of The Heritage Foundation and Heritage Action, welcomed Mr. Ruger by saying:
"Will's extensive experience across a wide range of policy areas makes him a tremendous addition to what is already the best team of scholars and policy experts in the business! His expertise will strengthen our policy work and help expand the reach and influence of Heritage's ideas in Washington and state legislatures across the country."
Derrick Morgan, executive vice president of The Heritage Foundation, remarked:
"Will Ruger's experience in uniform, teaching the next generation, leading a respected free-market think tank, and preparing the President's Daily Brief will inform his work at Heritage to help develop thoughtful, serious, and ultimately unified policy solutions. We are thrilled to welcome him as a Distinguished Fellow."
In his role at Heritage, Ruger will contribute to policy work, bringing the perspective of a scholar-practitioner. His appointment reflects Heritage's continued commitment to assembling the strongest team in the conservative movement.
"I'm excited to join the great team at Heritage at such an important juncture in the history of our country," Ruger noted. "If America is to remain the greatest nation in the world, conservative ideas and values must win the future just as they have shaped our past, and I look forward to helping Heritage harness them creatively and thoughtfully to meet the many challenges our country faces ahead."
Before joining Heritage, Ruger served as Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Mission Integration, where he helped lead collaborative integration across the intelligence community and supported intelligence products for senior policymakers. He previously served as president of the American Institute for Economic Research, vice president for research and policy at the Charles Koch Institute, and vice president for foreign policy at Stand Together.
In 2020, Ruger was nominated by President Trump for the position of United States Ambassador to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. He was appointed by the president to the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board at the U.S. Department of State in 2020, serving from 2020 to 2023.
Ruger was an associate professor of political science at Texas State University and an adjunct assistant professor at the University of Texas at Austin's LBJ School of Public Affairs. He earned his Ph.D. in politics from Brandeis University and his A.B. from the College of William and Mary. His scholarship has appeared in leading academic journals, and he is the author of Milton Friedman and co-author of Freedom in the 50 States.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.heritage.org/press/the-heritage-foundation-welcomes-william-ruger-distinguished-fellow
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center on Budget & Policy Priorities: Ballot Measures Restricting State Revenues and Citizen Initiatives Would Impede Needed Investments and Supports
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 -- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued the following report:
* * *
Ballot Measures Restricting State Revenues and Citizen Initiatives Would Impede Needed Investments and Supports
October 19, 2026 | Clara Wilson
Voters across the country will decide state ballot measures in the November elections that would reduce state lawmakers' ability to raise revenue, restrict local governments' agency to set their own tax policies, and limit voters' ability to enact policies directly through citizen initiatives. Though they take different forms, these measures all weaken ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 -- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued the following report: * * * Ballot Measures Restricting State Revenues and Citizen Initiatives Would Impede Needed Investments and Supports October 19, 2026 | Clara Wilson Voters across the country will decide state ballot measures in the November elections that would reduce state lawmakers' ability to raise revenue, restrict local governments' agency to set their own tax policies, and limit voters' ability to enact policies directly through citizen initiatives. Though they take different forms, these measures all weakendemocratic processes in states by narrowing the options available to address public priorities and invest in the services and supports families rely on.
These restrictions could become especially consequential as states face growing fiscal pressures. Following historically deep cuts to health care and food assistance in the harmful 2025 Republican reconciliation law, states will face new SNAP costs in 2027, along with Medicaid work requirements and restrictions on provider taxes that will hinder states' ability to raise revenue needed to finance their Medicaid programs.[1] At the same time, many states face budget challenges stemming from their own recent policy choices, including widespread income tax cuts (a number of states enacted additional tax cuts this year), costly private school voucher programs, and a growing number of property tax cuts and caps.[2] Together, these pressures will make it much harder for states to invest in K-12 education, child care, health care, and other public services that help people and communities thrive.
State and local governments need flexibility and sufficient revenue to respond to pressing challenges in both good times and bad.[3] Yet, some November measures would do the opposite by locking tax restrictions into a state's laws or constitution, reducing policymakers' options to address fiscal challenges and increasing reliance on revenue sources like sales taxes and fines and fees, which ask more of people earning the least. Some measures before voters this November would also strip local lawmakers of power over raising needed revenues, which could sharply erode communities' ability to adequately support K-12 schools, emergency services, libraries, and other needs.[4]
Notably, in August, Missouri voters took a different approach by overwhelmingly rejecting a measure that would have required lawmakers to phase out the individual income tax while expanding sales taxes.[5] This defeat by Missouri voters will ensure that the tax burden is not heavily shifted to low- and middle-income households and that state policymakers retain much-needed flexibility to set budget and tax policies that align with the needs of the state as those needs change.
Measures Restricting State Revenue-Raising Options
Arizona
Lawmakers referred Proposition 316 to the ballot.[6] The measure would cap local grocery sales taxes at 2 percent and require voter approval for any future increases. Although taxing groceries has important drawbacks, 70 cities and towns in Arizona -- including many rural communities -- still do so, in part because state law restricts other local revenue sources like property or income taxes.[7]
California
Voters will consider a proposed wealth tax: Proposition 40, which would impose a one-time, 5 percent tax on certain taxpayers with assets over $1 billion.[8] The measure would raise billions of dollars for health care, food assistance, and education and exempt that revenue from the state's spending cap.
But voters will also consider two competing ballot measures that could determine Prop. 40's future. Propositions 41 and 42 contain a series of provisions designed to functionally invalidate Prop. 40. Prop 42 would go even further and amend the state's constitution to prohibit future wealth taxes.[9] If either measure passes with more votes than Prop. 40, it would eliminate the wealth tax's projected revenue.[10]
Florida
Lawmakers referred a constitutional amendment to the ballot that would exempt the first $250,000 in property value from non-school-related property taxes on primary homes, lower the allowable increase in property assessments each year for non-homesteaded properties, and allow future legislatures to create a plan to fully eliminate non-school property taxes on homesteads.[11]
If the ballot measure passes, the state would lose $13.7 billion in the first two years of implementation, starting in 2027.[12] Also, Florida's public hospital districts and health systems, many of which have the authority to levy property taxes, would lose an estimated $323 million in revenue across fiscal years 2027-28 and 2028-29. This could reduce access to health care, cause staffing shortages, and limit public health support to Floridians with low incomes.[13]
Iowa
Lawmakers placed a constitutional amendment on the ballot requiring a two-thirds vote of both chambers of the legislature to raise personal and corporate income taxes, while tax cuts would still need only a simple majority. The measure would make it harder to address revenue shortfalls -- while passing budget-busting tax cuts would remain far easier; Iowa already faces a nearly $1 billion deficit in the current 2027 fiscal year after slashing the state's income tax.[14]
Oklahoma adopted a similar requirement in 1992, then went 26 years without a tax increase, contributing to steep cuts in health care, infrastructure, and education and forcing some schools to operate on four-day weeks.[15]
North Carolina
Lawmakers advanced two constitutional amendments this year that would severely limit revenue raising in the state. One would cut the maximum personal and corporate income tax rate in half (from 7 percent to 3.5 percent), permanently locking in tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations enacted over the past 13 years, and undermining policymakers' flexibility to adjust their fiscal policies over time.[16] This would cost the state $17 billion in annual revenue -- an amount that would grow over time -- from personal and corporate income taxes, reducing funding available for priorities such as raising teacher salaries, expanding first-time homebuyer assistance, and making child care more affordable.[17]
Lawmakers also placed a second constitutional amendment on the ballot that would require the General Assembly to cap local property taxes.[18] The amendment does not specify a levy limit, making it very difficult for local governments to prepare for or predict future revenue shortfalls that could jeopardize local services like parks and libraries.
Oklahoma
Lawmakers placed a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would lower the annual growth limit in property values, regardless of changes in their market value, from 3 percent to 1.75 percent for homestead properties and from 5 percent to 4 percent for other properties.[19] These limits would result in estimated revenue losses of nearly $600 million by 2037.[20]
Washington State
Initiative 645, promoted by hedge fund founder Brian Heywood and his political action committee, received enough signatures to be placed on the November ballot.[21] It would repeal Washington's new millionaires' tax and ban future state or local taxes on income.[22] The measure broadly defines income to include gains or benefits derived from capital, labor, property, or other sources, raising the risk it could invalidate the state's capital gains tax as well.[23]
Slated to start in 2029, the millionaires' tax will tax annual income above $1 million at 9.9 percent, raising more than $3 billion annually.[24] These funds will enable the state to expand tax benefits for working families and small businesses, invest in child care and early learning, and bolster a range of services supported through flexible state general funds. But if Initiative 645 passes, the state will lose that revenue and the ability to tax wealthy households' income in the future.
Measures Restricting Citizen Initiatives
A number of other measures on state ballots this year would restrict the citizen initiative process, which allows voters in 19 states to place statutes or constitutional amendments on the ballot.[25] Through citizen initiatives, voters have enacted policies such as raising the minimum wage, expanding Medicaid, and raising revenue when policymakers failed to.[26]
Recently, though, a growing number of states have restricted the process by imposing higher thresholds for proposals to pass (like supermajority requirements), making it harder for proposals to get on the ballot in the first place, and making it easier for lawmakers to gut them even if voters approve them.[27] Restricting the citizen initiative process weakens an alternative path for raising revenue when state and local lawmakers lack the revenue or political will to invest in important programs and services.
In August, Missouri voters considered a measure that would have required citizen-initiated constitutional amendments to win majority support in every single congressional district rather than statewide; they rejected it overwhelmingly.[28] However, other measures increasing restrictions on the citizen initiative process are on November ballots in California, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah.[29]
With states facing growing budget pressures, voters must decide whether to preserve their ability to fund essential services and respond to future needs or impose restrictions that could worsen budget shortfalls and limit future decisions about taxes and public investments. These choices will have lasting impacts on states' ability to support public schools, health care, and other services that families and communities rely on.
* * *
End Notes
[1] Wesley Tharpe, Clara Wilson, and Joanna LeFebvre, "Sound State Revenue Choices Essential to Counteract Harmful Policies and Build Forward," CBPP, February 26, 2026, https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/sound-state-revenue-choices-essential-to-counteract-harmful-policies; Katie Bergh and Dottie Rosenbaum, "New Data Underscore SNAP Cost Shift's Harm to Low-Income Families and State Budgets," CBPP, July 23, 2026, https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/new-data-underscore-snap-cost-shifts-harm-to-low-income-families-and-state; Allie Gardner and Allison Orris, "Administration Policies Go Beyond 2025 Republican Reconciliation Law, Deepening Its Harm," CBPP, August 4, 2026, https://www.cbpp.org/blog/administration-policies-go-beyond-2025-republican-reconciliation-law-deepening-its-harm.
[2] CBPP, "Tracking the Fallout From State Tax Cuts," updated August 24, 2026, https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/tracking-the-fallout-from-state-tax-cuts; Wesley Tharpe, "Several States Strengthened Revenues in 2026, While Others Chose More Harmful Path," CBPP, July 20, 2026, https://www.cbpp.org/blog/several-states-strengthened-revenues-in-2026-while-others-chose-more-harmful-path; Joanna LeFebvre, "To Public Schools' Detriment, Some States Continue to Increase Spending on Private School Vouchers," CBPP, August 6, 2026, https://www.cbpp.org/blog/to-public-schools-detriment-some-states-continue-to-increase-spending-on-private-school; Joanna LeFebvre and Clara Wilson, "More States Jeopardizing Local Services With Property Tax Cuts and Caps," CBPP, July 9, 2026, https://www.cbpp.org/blog/more-states-jeopardizing-local-services-with-property-tax-cuts-and-caps.
[3] Wesley Tharpe, "States Must Prioritize Revenue to Support People and Communities in Wake of Harmful Republican Megabill," CBPP, November 17, 2025, https://www.cbpp.org/blog/states-must-prioritize-revenue-to-support-people-and-communities-in-wake-of-harmful-republican.
[4] Rita Jefferson, Nick Johnson, and Angelo Pis-Dudot, "Tax the Rich, Fund Our Communities: Local Options for Progressive Revenue," Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, May 18, 2026, https://itep.org/tax-the-rich-fund-our-communities-local-options-for-progressive-revenue/.
[5] Wesley Tharpe and Whitney Jemison, "Missouri Tax Amendment Likely to Seriously Harm Services, Shift Taxes Onto Working Families," CBPP, July 14, 2026, https://www.cbpp.org/blog/missouri-tax-amendment-likely-to-seriously-harm-services-shift-taxes-onto-working-families.
[6] Ballotpedia, "Arizona Proposition 316, Limit Local Tax Rate on Groceries to 2% of Base Price and Require Voter Approval to Increase Tax Rate Measure (2026)," https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Proposition_316,_Limit_Local_Tax_Rate_on_Groceries_to_2%25_of_Base_Price_and_Require_Voter_Approval_to_Increase_Tax_Rate_Measure_(2026).
[7] Eric Figueroa and Iris Hinh, "States Can Thoughtfully Implement Grocery Tax Reforms to Help Families and Improve Equity," CBPP, February 3, 2022, https://www.cbpp.org/blog/states-can-thoughtfully-implement-grocery-tax-reforms-to-help-families-and-improve-equity; Gloria Rebecca Gomez, "Prop. 316 would cap Arizona grocery taxes. Rural cities say it will cost them, and their residents," AZ Mirror, September 21, 2026, https://azmirror.com/2026/09/21/prop-316-would-cap-arizona-grocery-taxes-rural-cities-say-it-will-cost-them-and-their-residents/.
[8] California Budget & Policy Center, "Billionaire Tax Explained: What Proposition 40 Would Mean for California," August 2026, https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/billionaire-tax-explained-what-proposition-40-would-mean-for-california/.
[9] Kayla Kitson, "What Would Proposition 42 Mean for California?" California Budget & Policy Center, September 2026, https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/what-would-proposition-42-mean-for-california/.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Esteban Leonardo Santis, "Amendment 3: Property Tax Ballot Language Summary and Local Fiscal Impacts," Florida Policy Institute, July 21, 2026, https://www.floridapolicy.org/posts/florida-property-tax-amendment-ballot-language-summary.
[12] Neva Butkus, "Tallying Up the Impact of Florida's Property Tax Ballot Measure on Local Communities," Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, September 29, 2026, https://itep.org/impact-of-amendment-3-florida-property-tax-ballot-measure/.
[13] Erica Monet Li, "Property Tax Cuts Under Amendment 3 Would Lead to Reductions in Services for Some Florida Hospitals," Florida Policy Institute, October 7, 2026, https://www.floridapolicy.org/posts/property-tax-cuts-under-amendment-3-would-lead-to-reductions-in-services-for-some-florida-hospitals.
[14] Common Good Iowa, "Minority-rule tax amendment risks schools, safety, health," July 2026, https://www.commongoodiowa.org/policy-areas/state-budget--taxes/minority-rule-tax-amendment-risks-schools-safety-health.
[15] Oklahoma Policy Institute, "2019 Priority: Revisit the supermajority requirement of SQ 640," updated May 2, 2019, https://okpolicy.org/2019-priority-revisit-the-supermajority-requirement-of-sq-640/; Sam Waxman, "Supermajority Requirement Stymied Sensible Tax Reforms in Oklahoma," CBPP, March 26, 2018, https://www.cbpp.org/blog/supermajority-requirement-stymied-sensible-tax-reforms-in-oklahoma.
[16] Sally Hodges-Copple, "Capping Income Taxes for Millionaires and Corporations Could Lead to Huge Sales Tax Increase for Working Families," NC Budget & Tax Center, September 29, 2026, https://ncbudget.org/capping-income-taxes-for-millionaires-and-corporations-could-lead-to-huge-sales-tax-increase-for-working-families/.
[17] NC Budget & Tax Center, "Fact Sheet: Lowering the Income Tax Limit in the State Constitution Would Lock Future North Carolinians Into Today's Bad Tax Policy," August 23, 2026, https://ncbudget.org/fact_sheet_tax_cap_2026/.
[18] NC Budget & Tax Center, "House Bill 1089: Const. Amend. Property Tax Levy Limit," April 28, 2026, https://ncbudget.org/house-bill-1089-const-amend-property-tax-levy-limit/.
[19] Nuria Martinez-Keel, "State Question 847 would cap Oklahomans' property tax growth. At what cost?" Oklahoma Voice, October 14, 2026, https://oklahomavoice.com/2026/10/14/state-question-847-would-cap-oklahomans-property-tax-growth-at-what-cost/.
[20] Aanahita Irani Ervin, "Swapping one tax for a worse one doesn't pay off," Oklahoma Policy Institute, updated April 16, 2026, https://okpolicy.org/swapping-one-tax-for-a-worse-one-doesnt-pay-off/.
[21] "This November 2026 Vote Yes I-001, I-638, I-645," https://letsgowashington.com/.
[22] Wesley Tharpe, "Millionaires' Tax Before Washington Voters Supports Vital Investments, Makes Tax Code Fairer," CBPP, October 6, 2026, https://www.cbpp.org/blog/millionaires-tax-before-washington-voters-supports-vital-investments-makes-tax-code-fairer.
[23] Jin Brunner, "Could initiative to kill WA 'millionaires tax' also kill capital gains tax?" Seattle Times, June 29, 2026, https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/could-initiative-to-kill-wa-millionaires-tax-also-kill-capital-gains-tax/.
[24] Iana Mae Abinales, "The benefits of the Millionaires Tax for Washington state," Washington State Budget & Policy Center, September 22, 2026, https://budgetandpolicy.org/resources-tools/the-benefits-of-the-millionaires-tax-for-washington-state/.
[25] Movement Advancement Project, "Direct Citizen Initiative States," https://mapresearch.org/democracy-map/direct-citizen-initiative-states/.
[26] Sara Carter, Alice Clapman, and Alexi Comella, "Politicians Take Aim at Ballot Initiatives," Brennan Center for Justice, January 16, 2024, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/politicians-take-aim-ballot-initiatives.
[27] MultiState Elections, "The Anti-Ballot Measure Playbook," https://www.multistate.us/elections/ballot-measures-playbook.
[28] Ballotpedia, "Missouri Amendment 4, Require Congressional District Approval for Initiated Constitutional Amendments, Prohibit Foreign Contributions, and Penalize Petition Fraud Amendment (August 2026)," https://ballotpedia.org/Missouri_Amendment_4,_Require_Congressional_District_Approval_for_Initiated_Constitutional_Amendments,_Prohibit_Foreign_Contributions,_and_Penalize_Petition_Fraud_Amendment_(August_2026).
[29] Yue Stella Yu, "Prop. 43 would make special taxes harder to pass. That's the point, say anti-tax advocates," CalMatters, October 9, 2026, https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/10/california-prop-43-election-2026/; Ballotpedia, "North Dakota Constitutional Measure 1, 60% Vote Requirement for Constitutional Amendments Measure (2026)," https://ballotpedia.org/North_Dakota_Constitutional_Measure_1,_60%25_Vote_Requirement_for_Constitutional_Amendments_Measure_(2026); Ballotpedia, "South Dakota Constitutional Amendment L, 60% Vote Requirement for Constitutional Amendments Measure (2026)," https://ballotpedia.org/South_Dakota_Constitutional_Amendment_L,_60%25_Vote_Requirement_for_Constitutional_Amendments_Measure_(2026); Katie McKellar, "Utah lawmakers want a higher bar for ballot initiatives that raise taxes. Will voters sign off?" News From The States, September 28, 2026, https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/utah-lawmakers-want-higher-bar-ballot-initiatives-raise-taxes-will-voters-sign.
* * *
Clara Wilson is a Policy Analyst on the State Fiscal Policy team. Prior to joining the Center, she was a Senior Policy Analyst at Groundwork Collaborative, where she worked on a broad range of economic policy issues such as labor, tax, and corporate profiteering.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/ballot-measures-restricting-state-revenues-and-citizen-initiatives
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Ballot Measures Restricting State Revenues and Citizen Initiatives Would Impede Needed Investments and Supports
October 19, 2026 | Clara Wilson
Voters across the country will decide state ballot measures in the November elections that would reduce state lawmakers' ability to raise revenue, restrict local governments' agency to set their own tax policies, and limit voters' ability to enact policies directly through citizen initiatives. Though they take different forms, these measures all weaken ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 -- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued the following report: * * * Ballot Measures Restricting State Revenues and Citizen Initiatives Would Impede Needed Investments and Supports October 19, 2026 | Clara Wilson Voters across the country will decide state ballot measures in the November elections that would reduce state lawmakers' ability to raise revenue, restrict local governments' agency to set their own tax policies, and limit voters' ability to enact policies directly through citizen initiatives. Though they take different forms, these measures all weakendemocratic processes in states by narrowing the options available to address public priorities and invest in the services and supports families rely on.
These restrictions could become especially consequential as states face growing fiscal pressures. Following historically deep cuts to health care and food assistance in the harmful 2025 Republican reconciliation law, states will face new SNAP costs in 2027, along with Medicaid work requirements and restrictions on provider taxes that will hinder states' ability to raise revenue needed to finance their Medicaid programs.[1] At the same time, many states face budget challenges stemming from their own recent policy choices, including widespread income tax cuts (a number of states enacted additional tax cuts this year), costly private school voucher programs, and a growing number of property tax cuts and caps.[2] Together, these pressures will make it much harder for states to invest in K-12 education, child care, health care, and other public services that help people and communities thrive.
State and local governments need flexibility and sufficient revenue to respond to pressing challenges in both good times and bad.[3] Yet, some November measures would do the opposite by locking tax restrictions into a state's laws or constitution, reducing policymakers' options to address fiscal challenges and increasing reliance on revenue sources like sales taxes and fines and fees, which ask more of people earning the least. Some measures before voters this November would also strip local lawmakers of power over raising needed revenues, which could sharply erode communities' ability to adequately support K-12 schools, emergency services, libraries, and other needs.[4]
Notably, in August, Missouri voters took a different approach by overwhelmingly rejecting a measure that would have required lawmakers to phase out the individual income tax while expanding sales taxes.[5] This defeat by Missouri voters will ensure that the tax burden is not heavily shifted to low- and middle-income households and that state policymakers retain much-needed flexibility to set budget and tax policies that align with the needs of the state as those needs change.
Measures Restricting State Revenue-Raising Options
Arizona
Lawmakers referred Proposition 316 to the ballot.[6] The measure would cap local grocery sales taxes at 2 percent and require voter approval for any future increases. Although taxing groceries has important drawbacks, 70 cities and towns in Arizona -- including many rural communities -- still do so, in part because state law restricts other local revenue sources like property or income taxes.[7]
California
Voters will consider a proposed wealth tax: Proposition 40, which would impose a one-time, 5 percent tax on certain taxpayers with assets over $1 billion.[8] The measure would raise billions of dollars for health care, food assistance, and education and exempt that revenue from the state's spending cap.
But voters will also consider two competing ballot measures that could determine Prop. 40's future. Propositions 41 and 42 contain a series of provisions designed to functionally invalidate Prop. 40. Prop 42 would go even further and amend the state's constitution to prohibit future wealth taxes.[9] If either measure passes with more votes than Prop. 40, it would eliminate the wealth tax's projected revenue.[10]
Florida
Lawmakers referred a constitutional amendment to the ballot that would exempt the first $250,000 in property value from non-school-related property taxes on primary homes, lower the allowable increase in property assessments each year for non-homesteaded properties, and allow future legislatures to create a plan to fully eliminate non-school property taxes on homesteads.[11]
If the ballot measure passes, the state would lose $13.7 billion in the first two years of implementation, starting in 2027.[12] Also, Florida's public hospital districts and health systems, many of which have the authority to levy property taxes, would lose an estimated $323 million in revenue across fiscal years 2027-28 and 2028-29. This could reduce access to health care, cause staffing shortages, and limit public health support to Floridians with low incomes.[13]
Iowa
Lawmakers placed a constitutional amendment on the ballot requiring a two-thirds vote of both chambers of the legislature to raise personal and corporate income taxes, while tax cuts would still need only a simple majority. The measure would make it harder to address revenue shortfalls -- while passing budget-busting tax cuts would remain far easier; Iowa already faces a nearly $1 billion deficit in the current 2027 fiscal year after slashing the state's income tax.[14]
Oklahoma adopted a similar requirement in 1992, then went 26 years without a tax increase, contributing to steep cuts in health care, infrastructure, and education and forcing some schools to operate on four-day weeks.[15]
North Carolina
Lawmakers advanced two constitutional amendments this year that would severely limit revenue raising in the state. One would cut the maximum personal and corporate income tax rate in half (from 7 percent to 3.5 percent), permanently locking in tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations enacted over the past 13 years, and undermining policymakers' flexibility to adjust their fiscal policies over time.[16] This would cost the state $17 billion in annual revenue -- an amount that would grow over time -- from personal and corporate income taxes, reducing funding available for priorities such as raising teacher salaries, expanding first-time homebuyer assistance, and making child care more affordable.[17]
Lawmakers also placed a second constitutional amendment on the ballot that would require the General Assembly to cap local property taxes.[18] The amendment does not specify a levy limit, making it very difficult for local governments to prepare for or predict future revenue shortfalls that could jeopardize local services like parks and libraries.
Oklahoma
Lawmakers placed a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would lower the annual growth limit in property values, regardless of changes in their market value, from 3 percent to 1.75 percent for homestead properties and from 5 percent to 4 percent for other properties.[19] These limits would result in estimated revenue losses of nearly $600 million by 2037.[20]
Washington State
Initiative 645, promoted by hedge fund founder Brian Heywood and his political action committee, received enough signatures to be placed on the November ballot.[21] It would repeal Washington's new millionaires' tax and ban future state or local taxes on income.[22] The measure broadly defines income to include gains or benefits derived from capital, labor, property, or other sources, raising the risk it could invalidate the state's capital gains tax as well.[23]
Slated to start in 2029, the millionaires' tax will tax annual income above $1 million at 9.9 percent, raising more than $3 billion annually.[24] These funds will enable the state to expand tax benefits for working families and small businesses, invest in child care and early learning, and bolster a range of services supported through flexible state general funds. But if Initiative 645 passes, the state will lose that revenue and the ability to tax wealthy households' income in the future.
Measures Restricting Citizen Initiatives
A number of other measures on state ballots this year would restrict the citizen initiative process, which allows voters in 19 states to place statutes or constitutional amendments on the ballot.[25] Through citizen initiatives, voters have enacted policies such as raising the minimum wage, expanding Medicaid, and raising revenue when policymakers failed to.[26]
Recently, though, a growing number of states have restricted the process by imposing higher thresholds for proposals to pass (like supermajority requirements), making it harder for proposals to get on the ballot in the first place, and making it easier for lawmakers to gut them even if voters approve them.[27] Restricting the citizen initiative process weakens an alternative path for raising revenue when state and local lawmakers lack the revenue or political will to invest in important programs and services.
In August, Missouri voters considered a measure that would have required citizen-initiated constitutional amendments to win majority support in every single congressional district rather than statewide; they rejected it overwhelmingly.[28] However, other measures increasing restrictions on the citizen initiative process are on November ballots in California, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah.[29]
With states facing growing budget pressures, voters must decide whether to preserve their ability to fund essential services and respond to future needs or impose restrictions that could worsen budget shortfalls and limit future decisions about taxes and public investments. These choices will have lasting impacts on states' ability to support public schools, health care, and other services that families and communities rely on.
* * *
End Notes
[1] Wesley Tharpe, Clara Wilson, and Joanna LeFebvre, "Sound State Revenue Choices Essential to Counteract Harmful Policies and Build Forward," CBPP, February 26, 2026, https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/sound-state-revenue-choices-essential-to-counteract-harmful-policies; Katie Bergh and Dottie Rosenbaum, "New Data Underscore SNAP Cost Shift's Harm to Low-Income Families and State Budgets," CBPP, July 23, 2026, https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/new-data-underscore-snap-cost-shifts-harm-to-low-income-families-and-state; Allie Gardner and Allison Orris, "Administration Policies Go Beyond 2025 Republican Reconciliation Law, Deepening Its Harm," CBPP, August 4, 2026, https://www.cbpp.org/blog/administration-policies-go-beyond-2025-republican-reconciliation-law-deepening-its-harm.
[2] CBPP, "Tracking the Fallout From State Tax Cuts," updated August 24, 2026, https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/tracking-the-fallout-from-state-tax-cuts; Wesley Tharpe, "Several States Strengthened Revenues in 2026, While Others Chose More Harmful Path," CBPP, July 20, 2026, https://www.cbpp.org/blog/several-states-strengthened-revenues-in-2026-while-others-chose-more-harmful-path; Joanna LeFebvre, "To Public Schools' Detriment, Some States Continue to Increase Spending on Private School Vouchers," CBPP, August 6, 2026, https://www.cbpp.org/blog/to-public-schools-detriment-some-states-continue-to-increase-spending-on-private-school; Joanna LeFebvre and Clara Wilson, "More States Jeopardizing Local Services With Property Tax Cuts and Caps," CBPP, July 9, 2026, https://www.cbpp.org/blog/more-states-jeopardizing-local-services-with-property-tax-cuts-and-caps.
[3] Wesley Tharpe, "States Must Prioritize Revenue to Support People and Communities in Wake of Harmful Republican Megabill," CBPP, November 17, 2025, https://www.cbpp.org/blog/states-must-prioritize-revenue-to-support-people-and-communities-in-wake-of-harmful-republican.
[4] Rita Jefferson, Nick Johnson, and Angelo Pis-Dudot, "Tax the Rich, Fund Our Communities: Local Options for Progressive Revenue," Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, May 18, 2026, https://itep.org/tax-the-rich-fund-our-communities-local-options-for-progressive-revenue/.
[5] Wesley Tharpe and Whitney Jemison, "Missouri Tax Amendment Likely to Seriously Harm Services, Shift Taxes Onto Working Families," CBPP, July 14, 2026, https://www.cbpp.org/blog/missouri-tax-amendment-likely-to-seriously-harm-services-shift-taxes-onto-working-families.
[6] Ballotpedia, "Arizona Proposition 316, Limit Local Tax Rate on Groceries to 2% of Base Price and Require Voter Approval to Increase Tax Rate Measure (2026)," https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Proposition_316,_Limit_Local_Tax_Rate_on_Groceries_to_2%25_of_Base_Price_and_Require_Voter_Approval_to_Increase_Tax_Rate_Measure_(2026).
[7] Eric Figueroa and Iris Hinh, "States Can Thoughtfully Implement Grocery Tax Reforms to Help Families and Improve Equity," CBPP, February 3, 2022, https://www.cbpp.org/blog/states-can-thoughtfully-implement-grocery-tax-reforms-to-help-families-and-improve-equity; Gloria Rebecca Gomez, "Prop. 316 would cap Arizona grocery taxes. Rural cities say it will cost them, and their residents," AZ Mirror, September 21, 2026, https://azmirror.com/2026/09/21/prop-316-would-cap-arizona-grocery-taxes-rural-cities-say-it-will-cost-them-and-their-residents/.
[8] California Budget & Policy Center, "Billionaire Tax Explained: What Proposition 40 Would Mean for California," August 2026, https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/billionaire-tax-explained-what-proposition-40-would-mean-for-california/.
[9] Kayla Kitson, "What Would Proposition 42 Mean for California?" California Budget & Policy Center, September 2026, https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/what-would-proposition-42-mean-for-california/.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Esteban Leonardo Santis, "Amendment 3: Property Tax Ballot Language Summary and Local Fiscal Impacts," Florida Policy Institute, July 21, 2026, https://www.floridapolicy.org/posts/florida-property-tax-amendment-ballot-language-summary.
[12] Neva Butkus, "Tallying Up the Impact of Florida's Property Tax Ballot Measure on Local Communities," Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, September 29, 2026, https://itep.org/impact-of-amendment-3-florida-property-tax-ballot-measure/.
[13] Erica Monet Li, "Property Tax Cuts Under Amendment 3 Would Lead to Reductions in Services for Some Florida Hospitals," Florida Policy Institute, October 7, 2026, https://www.floridapolicy.org/posts/property-tax-cuts-under-amendment-3-would-lead-to-reductions-in-services-for-some-florida-hospitals.
[14] Common Good Iowa, "Minority-rule tax amendment risks schools, safety, health," July 2026, https://www.commongoodiowa.org/policy-areas/state-budget--taxes/minority-rule-tax-amendment-risks-schools-safety-health.
[15] Oklahoma Policy Institute, "2019 Priority: Revisit the supermajority requirement of SQ 640," updated May 2, 2019, https://okpolicy.org/2019-priority-revisit-the-supermajority-requirement-of-sq-640/; Sam Waxman, "Supermajority Requirement Stymied Sensible Tax Reforms in Oklahoma," CBPP, March 26, 2018, https://www.cbpp.org/blog/supermajority-requirement-stymied-sensible-tax-reforms-in-oklahoma.
[16] Sally Hodges-Copple, "Capping Income Taxes for Millionaires and Corporations Could Lead to Huge Sales Tax Increase for Working Families," NC Budget & Tax Center, September 29, 2026, https://ncbudget.org/capping-income-taxes-for-millionaires-and-corporations-could-lead-to-huge-sales-tax-increase-for-working-families/.
[17] NC Budget & Tax Center, "Fact Sheet: Lowering the Income Tax Limit in the State Constitution Would Lock Future North Carolinians Into Today's Bad Tax Policy," August 23, 2026, https://ncbudget.org/fact_sheet_tax_cap_2026/.
[18] NC Budget & Tax Center, "House Bill 1089: Const. Amend. Property Tax Levy Limit," April 28, 2026, https://ncbudget.org/house-bill-1089-const-amend-property-tax-levy-limit/.
[19] Nuria Martinez-Keel, "State Question 847 would cap Oklahomans' property tax growth. At what cost?" Oklahoma Voice, October 14, 2026, https://oklahomavoice.com/2026/10/14/state-question-847-would-cap-oklahomans-property-tax-growth-at-what-cost/.
[20] Aanahita Irani Ervin, "Swapping one tax for a worse one doesn't pay off," Oklahoma Policy Institute, updated April 16, 2026, https://okpolicy.org/swapping-one-tax-for-a-worse-one-doesnt-pay-off/.
[21] "This November 2026 Vote Yes I-001, I-638, I-645," https://letsgowashington.com/.
[22] Wesley Tharpe, "Millionaires' Tax Before Washington Voters Supports Vital Investments, Makes Tax Code Fairer," CBPP, October 6, 2026, https://www.cbpp.org/blog/millionaires-tax-before-washington-voters-supports-vital-investments-makes-tax-code-fairer.
[23] Jin Brunner, "Could initiative to kill WA 'millionaires tax' also kill capital gains tax?" Seattle Times, June 29, 2026, https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/could-initiative-to-kill-wa-millionaires-tax-also-kill-capital-gains-tax/.
[24] Iana Mae Abinales, "The benefits of the Millionaires Tax for Washington state," Washington State Budget & Policy Center, September 22, 2026, https://budgetandpolicy.org/resources-tools/the-benefits-of-the-millionaires-tax-for-washington-state/.
[25] Movement Advancement Project, "Direct Citizen Initiative States," https://mapresearch.org/democracy-map/direct-citizen-initiative-states/.
[26] Sara Carter, Alice Clapman, and Alexi Comella, "Politicians Take Aim at Ballot Initiatives," Brennan Center for Justice, January 16, 2024, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/politicians-take-aim-ballot-initiatives.
[27] MultiState Elections, "The Anti-Ballot Measure Playbook," https://www.multistate.us/elections/ballot-measures-playbook.
[28] Ballotpedia, "Missouri Amendment 4, Require Congressional District Approval for Initiated Constitutional Amendments, Prohibit Foreign Contributions, and Penalize Petition Fraud Amendment (August 2026)," https://ballotpedia.org/Missouri_Amendment_4,_Require_Congressional_District_Approval_for_Initiated_Constitutional_Amendments,_Prohibit_Foreign_Contributions,_and_Penalize_Petition_Fraud_Amendment_(August_2026).
[29] Yue Stella Yu, "Prop. 43 would make special taxes harder to pass. That's the point, say anti-tax advocates," CalMatters, October 9, 2026, https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/10/california-prop-43-election-2026/; Ballotpedia, "North Dakota Constitutional Measure 1, 60% Vote Requirement for Constitutional Amendments Measure (2026)," https://ballotpedia.org/North_Dakota_Constitutional_Measure_1,_60%25_Vote_Requirement_for_Constitutional_Amendments_Measure_(2026); Ballotpedia, "South Dakota Constitutional Amendment L, 60% Vote Requirement for Constitutional Amendments Measure (2026)," https://ballotpedia.org/South_Dakota_Constitutional_Amendment_L,_60%25_Vote_Requirement_for_Constitutional_Amendments_Measure_(2026); Katie McKellar, "Utah lawmakers want a higher bar for ballot initiatives that raise taxes. Will voters sign off?" News From The States, September 28, 2026, https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/utah-lawmakers-want-higher-bar-ballot-initiatives-raise-taxes-will-voters-sign.
* * *
Clara Wilson is a Policy Analyst on the State Fiscal Policy team. Prior to joining the Center, she was a Senior Policy Analyst at Groundwork Collaborative, where she worked on a broad range of economic policy issues such as labor, tax, and corporate profiteering.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/ballot-measures-restricting-state-revenues-and-citizen-initiatives
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: Space Superiority and the Military Tools to Secure It
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary:
* * *
Space Superiority and the Military Tools to Secure It
Commentary by DeAnna Marie Burt and Kari A. Bingen
October 19, 2026
This piece is part of a commentary series called "The Foundations of Space Superiority" that analyzes the strategic, economic, and scientific drivers of securing a lasting U.S. advantage in space.
In early September, Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink and Chief of Space Operations General Douglas Schiess disclosed the existence of "on-orbit space control ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary: * * * Space Superiority and the Military Tools to Secure It Commentary by DeAnna Marie Burt and Kari A. Bingen October 19, 2026 This piece is part of a commentary series called "The Foundations of Space Superiority" that analyzes the strategic, economic, and scientific drivers of securing a lasting U.S. advantage in space. In early September, Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink and Chief of Space Operations General Douglas Schiess disclosed the existence of "on-orbit space controlweapons." This acknowledgement, while long overdue, marks an evolution in the space domain's place in modern warfare and a recognition that the U.S. Space Force and U.S. Space Command need a broader tool kit to counter threats and defend U.S. interests in space. The disclosure will enable the Space Force to better integrate its own tools of warfare into joint planning and operations, deepen cooperation with allies and partners on space defense, and galvanize the U.S. industrial base to build the capabilities and infrastructure that underwrite continued U.S. space superiority.
The strategic implications of maintaining the ultimate high ground in space have been clear since the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957 and the United States fielded its early reconnaissance satellites to monitor Soviet nuclear weapons. Since then, the domain has only grown in importance. The global space economy exceeded $600 billion in 2025 and the uses and applications of space have transformed the day-to-day lives of billions of people, enabling essential services such as navigation, weather forecasting, and land management. Space assets also underpin how the U.S. military fights and the weapon systems it invests in. Satellites help the force see farther, communicate across vast distances, and strike with precision. Satellite images and missile warning data help troops decide where to move, when to act, and when to take shelter. As more tracking and surveillance systems move from aircraft to orbit, that dependence will only deepen.
America's adversaries know space is an Achilles heel. They also know a country that integrates space capabilities into its military forces gains a battlefield advantage. They are expanding their own use of space to support terrestrial military operations while building counterspace weapons to erode the U.S. military advantage. This is the contest for space superiority: As in other domains of warfare, opponents seek to utilize the space domain at the time and place of their choosing to maximize their military advantage while denying their adversaries the same.
Space is already a battleground for both Ukraine and the Middle East. Russia is using military and commercial space assets to develop battlefield targets, steer its drones, and communicate across the battlefield. Iran has struck U.S. military bases across the region, reportedly aided by targeting information from Chinese imagery satellites. But this is just a preview of what is to come: The Pentagon counts China's reconnaissance and targeting fleet at more than 500 satellites. Paired with Starlink-like communications networks and navigation satellites, Beijing is building its own space-enabled "kill web" to find and strike U.S. forces across the Pacific--and doing so at massive scale.
Just as the Army would not cede the highest ridgeline or the Air Force allow enemy aircraft to track forces from overhead, so too should U.S. space forces be able to maintain their position and secure their operating area, giving forces on the ground and at sea the time and maneuvering room they need to accomplish their objectives. Having weapons--whether in space or elsewhere--that can hold an opponent's satellites at risk and disrupt their ability to target U.S. forces is fundamental to joint warfighting doctrine. The joint force calls this "protection."
At the same time, China and Russia possess their own arsenals of "space weapons," based both in orbit and on Earth, that could disrupt or destroy their opponents' space assets. These threats range from jamming signals to the physical destruction of satellites. Beijing's 2007 anti-satellite missile test and Moscow's 2021 test demonstrated their destructive potential, and left debris that continues to pose a hazard to spacecraft. Other developments are less dramatic but still consequential. In 2022, Beijing's Shijian-21 (SJ-21) grappled an aging satellite in geosynchronous and towed it to a disposal orbit. In 2025, Shijian-25 docked with SJ-21, completing the first known satellite-to-satellite refueling at that distance and executing some of the largest synchronized maneuvers ever observed there. Russian spacecraft loiter near high-value satellites for months, some releasing small objects, unremarkable until the moment they are not. As in other domains, the United States needs the means to counter threats in space. Warfare evolves through adaptation: The capabilities and tactics the United States fields will be countered, and it should expect every counter to be countered in turn.
While addressing space threats requires a whole-of-government response, the military's job is to develop military options for the president, including for when deterrence fails. The Space Force should possess capabilities and weapons that give it options for protection, movement and maneuver, and fires--the range of joint warfighting functions present in every domain. Those choices should work alongside the other services' capabilities and support a broader campaign by combatant commanders. Crucially, their value is not measured only by their use in conflict; credible capabilities also strengthen deterrence by convincing adversaries that attacks on U.S. space systems will not deliver the advantage they seek and that their own space-enabled operations are not beyond the military's reach.
To date, those options have been presented as part of the Space Force's theory of success known as "competitive endurance." Competitive endurance rests on three pillars: (1) avoiding operational surprise, (2) denying first-mover advantage, and (3) responsible counterspace campaigning. In other words: understanding the threat, building resilience to withstand attacks, and having credible ways to respond. The Space Force has thus far largely focused on the first two pillars: Enhanced space domain awareness helps the United States understand how adversaries operate in space and avoid operational surprise, and proliferated constellations, disaggregated orbits, and redundant ground architectures help preserve missions under attack. The third pillar--response--is what every military service provides through a range of capabilities (e.g., conventional strike weapons, cyber effects, and special operations units). The Space Force can now say that on-orbit space weapons are part of its tool kit to defend the Joint Force, and that it no longer just takes punches, but can punch back.
Yet "responsible counterspace campaigning"--a euphemism not used in any other domain--also demands restraint. It is not in the United States' interest to employ weapons that create massive debris hazards, jeopardizing astronauts' lives, other national assets and those of allies, and commercial systems that underpin global connectivity and Earth observation. Competitive endurance emphasizes that responsible employment may also help establish norms for military operations in space.
This announcement is an important step, but its value will depend on what comes next. Stating one has space weapons is one thing, but closing the distance between theory and operational effectiveness is another. The Space Force and Space Command will need to strengthen their intelligence picture, targeting processes, and battle management capabilities. They should develop operational concepts and tactics for employing such weapons and testing them through wargames and, where appropriate, on-orbit demonstrations. Encouragingly, they are making progress. The Space Force has established organizational units, or Deltas, dedicated to orbital warfare, intelligence, and targeting. Space Command published a framework for joint force operations and is wargaming and exercising concepts such as space maneuver. Policy guidance should clarify who can authorize use of these weapons, while robust modeling and simulation tools are needed to help planners understand their operational effects and debris-generating risks.
Acknowledging on-orbit space control capabilities should also be paired with classification guidance that allows them to be discussed at lower classification levels. The Joint Force plans and operates at a collateral level, and it campaigns and fights in coalitions. To integrate space weapons into broader operations, the Joint Force should understand their existence and basic parameters. U.S. allies, also cognizant of the threat, are committing greater resources to space defense. Diplomats and military planners need sufficient information about U.S. capabilities to help shape allied investments, coordinate operations, and reduce risks of fratricide.
Finally, the industrial base will be essential to making space control a reality. The United States needs maneuverable spacecraft in numbers, supported by on-orbit refueling, servicing, and transport across orbital regimes. Automation and AI can help monitor satellite activity, detect unusual behavior, and accelerate planning, freeing operators to focus on decisions rather than data processing. Systems should also evolve as threats do, through software upgrades, adaptable payloads, and tactics refined through experience. This requires a strong, competitive industrial base with multiple providers across ground, space, and user segments. Budgets are finite, and speed and efficiency matter, so industry will be indispensable to turning competitive endurance from doctrine into operational advantage.
The public acknowledgement of on-orbit space control weapons may be new, but the mission is not. The Space Force--and Air Force before it--has long been charged with protecting space assets and limiting an adversary's ability to use the space domain against U.S. interests. What has changed is the nation's willingness to acknowledge the capabilities needed to carry out that mission; they can now be discussed and integrated into joint and allied planning, and investment in infrastructure can make them credible. Ultimately, space superiority is not about seeking conflict in orbit, but about deterring it, convincing adversaries that they cannot deny the United States the advantages of space or exploit their own space capabilities against U.S. forces without consequence. A credible, responsible space control capability gives the president options, strengthens deterrence, and helps ensure that U.S. forces can fight--and prevail--if deterrence fails. The American way of life and war depend upon it.
* * *
Lieutenant General DeAnna M. Burt, U.S. Space Force (Retired), is a senior associate (non-resident) in the Aerospace Security Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Kari A, Bingen is director of the Aerospace Security Project and senior fellow in the Defense and Security Department at CSIS.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/space-superiority-and-military-tools-secure-it
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Space Superiority and the Military Tools to Secure It
Commentary by DeAnna Marie Burt and Kari A. Bingen
October 19, 2026
This piece is part of a commentary series called "The Foundations of Space Superiority" that analyzes the strategic, economic, and scientific drivers of securing a lasting U.S. advantage in space.
In early September, Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink and Chief of Space Operations General Douglas Schiess disclosed the existence of "on-orbit space control ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary: * * * Space Superiority and the Military Tools to Secure It Commentary by DeAnna Marie Burt and Kari A. Bingen October 19, 2026 This piece is part of a commentary series called "The Foundations of Space Superiority" that analyzes the strategic, economic, and scientific drivers of securing a lasting U.S. advantage in space. In early September, Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink and Chief of Space Operations General Douglas Schiess disclosed the existence of "on-orbit space controlweapons." This acknowledgement, while long overdue, marks an evolution in the space domain's place in modern warfare and a recognition that the U.S. Space Force and U.S. Space Command need a broader tool kit to counter threats and defend U.S. interests in space. The disclosure will enable the Space Force to better integrate its own tools of warfare into joint planning and operations, deepen cooperation with allies and partners on space defense, and galvanize the U.S. industrial base to build the capabilities and infrastructure that underwrite continued U.S. space superiority.
The strategic implications of maintaining the ultimate high ground in space have been clear since the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957 and the United States fielded its early reconnaissance satellites to monitor Soviet nuclear weapons. Since then, the domain has only grown in importance. The global space economy exceeded $600 billion in 2025 and the uses and applications of space have transformed the day-to-day lives of billions of people, enabling essential services such as navigation, weather forecasting, and land management. Space assets also underpin how the U.S. military fights and the weapon systems it invests in. Satellites help the force see farther, communicate across vast distances, and strike with precision. Satellite images and missile warning data help troops decide where to move, when to act, and when to take shelter. As more tracking and surveillance systems move from aircraft to orbit, that dependence will only deepen.
America's adversaries know space is an Achilles heel. They also know a country that integrates space capabilities into its military forces gains a battlefield advantage. They are expanding their own use of space to support terrestrial military operations while building counterspace weapons to erode the U.S. military advantage. This is the contest for space superiority: As in other domains of warfare, opponents seek to utilize the space domain at the time and place of their choosing to maximize their military advantage while denying their adversaries the same.
Space is already a battleground for both Ukraine and the Middle East. Russia is using military and commercial space assets to develop battlefield targets, steer its drones, and communicate across the battlefield. Iran has struck U.S. military bases across the region, reportedly aided by targeting information from Chinese imagery satellites. But this is just a preview of what is to come: The Pentagon counts China's reconnaissance and targeting fleet at more than 500 satellites. Paired with Starlink-like communications networks and navigation satellites, Beijing is building its own space-enabled "kill web" to find and strike U.S. forces across the Pacific--and doing so at massive scale.
Just as the Army would not cede the highest ridgeline or the Air Force allow enemy aircraft to track forces from overhead, so too should U.S. space forces be able to maintain their position and secure their operating area, giving forces on the ground and at sea the time and maneuvering room they need to accomplish their objectives. Having weapons--whether in space or elsewhere--that can hold an opponent's satellites at risk and disrupt their ability to target U.S. forces is fundamental to joint warfighting doctrine. The joint force calls this "protection."
At the same time, China and Russia possess their own arsenals of "space weapons," based both in orbit and on Earth, that could disrupt or destroy their opponents' space assets. These threats range from jamming signals to the physical destruction of satellites. Beijing's 2007 anti-satellite missile test and Moscow's 2021 test demonstrated their destructive potential, and left debris that continues to pose a hazard to spacecraft. Other developments are less dramatic but still consequential. In 2022, Beijing's Shijian-21 (SJ-21) grappled an aging satellite in geosynchronous and towed it to a disposal orbit. In 2025, Shijian-25 docked with SJ-21, completing the first known satellite-to-satellite refueling at that distance and executing some of the largest synchronized maneuvers ever observed there. Russian spacecraft loiter near high-value satellites for months, some releasing small objects, unremarkable until the moment they are not. As in other domains, the United States needs the means to counter threats in space. Warfare evolves through adaptation: The capabilities and tactics the United States fields will be countered, and it should expect every counter to be countered in turn.
While addressing space threats requires a whole-of-government response, the military's job is to develop military options for the president, including for when deterrence fails. The Space Force should possess capabilities and weapons that give it options for protection, movement and maneuver, and fires--the range of joint warfighting functions present in every domain. Those choices should work alongside the other services' capabilities and support a broader campaign by combatant commanders. Crucially, their value is not measured only by their use in conflict; credible capabilities also strengthen deterrence by convincing adversaries that attacks on U.S. space systems will not deliver the advantage they seek and that their own space-enabled operations are not beyond the military's reach.
To date, those options have been presented as part of the Space Force's theory of success known as "competitive endurance." Competitive endurance rests on three pillars: (1) avoiding operational surprise, (2) denying first-mover advantage, and (3) responsible counterspace campaigning. In other words: understanding the threat, building resilience to withstand attacks, and having credible ways to respond. The Space Force has thus far largely focused on the first two pillars: Enhanced space domain awareness helps the United States understand how adversaries operate in space and avoid operational surprise, and proliferated constellations, disaggregated orbits, and redundant ground architectures help preserve missions under attack. The third pillar--response--is what every military service provides through a range of capabilities (e.g., conventional strike weapons, cyber effects, and special operations units). The Space Force can now say that on-orbit space weapons are part of its tool kit to defend the Joint Force, and that it no longer just takes punches, but can punch back.
Yet "responsible counterspace campaigning"--a euphemism not used in any other domain--also demands restraint. It is not in the United States' interest to employ weapons that create massive debris hazards, jeopardizing astronauts' lives, other national assets and those of allies, and commercial systems that underpin global connectivity and Earth observation. Competitive endurance emphasizes that responsible employment may also help establish norms for military operations in space.
This announcement is an important step, but its value will depend on what comes next. Stating one has space weapons is one thing, but closing the distance between theory and operational effectiveness is another. The Space Force and Space Command will need to strengthen their intelligence picture, targeting processes, and battle management capabilities. They should develop operational concepts and tactics for employing such weapons and testing them through wargames and, where appropriate, on-orbit demonstrations. Encouragingly, they are making progress. The Space Force has established organizational units, or Deltas, dedicated to orbital warfare, intelligence, and targeting. Space Command published a framework for joint force operations and is wargaming and exercising concepts such as space maneuver. Policy guidance should clarify who can authorize use of these weapons, while robust modeling and simulation tools are needed to help planners understand their operational effects and debris-generating risks.
Acknowledging on-orbit space control capabilities should also be paired with classification guidance that allows them to be discussed at lower classification levels. The Joint Force plans and operates at a collateral level, and it campaigns and fights in coalitions. To integrate space weapons into broader operations, the Joint Force should understand their existence and basic parameters. U.S. allies, also cognizant of the threat, are committing greater resources to space defense. Diplomats and military planners need sufficient information about U.S. capabilities to help shape allied investments, coordinate operations, and reduce risks of fratricide.
Finally, the industrial base will be essential to making space control a reality. The United States needs maneuverable spacecraft in numbers, supported by on-orbit refueling, servicing, and transport across orbital regimes. Automation and AI can help monitor satellite activity, detect unusual behavior, and accelerate planning, freeing operators to focus on decisions rather than data processing. Systems should also evolve as threats do, through software upgrades, adaptable payloads, and tactics refined through experience. This requires a strong, competitive industrial base with multiple providers across ground, space, and user segments. Budgets are finite, and speed and efficiency matter, so industry will be indispensable to turning competitive endurance from doctrine into operational advantage.
The public acknowledgement of on-orbit space control weapons may be new, but the mission is not. The Space Force--and Air Force before it--has long been charged with protecting space assets and limiting an adversary's ability to use the space domain against U.S. interests. What has changed is the nation's willingness to acknowledge the capabilities needed to carry out that mission; they can now be discussed and integrated into joint and allied planning, and investment in infrastructure can make them credible. Ultimately, space superiority is not about seeking conflict in orbit, but about deterring it, convincing adversaries that they cannot deny the United States the advantages of space or exploit their own space capabilities against U.S. forces without consequence. A credible, responsible space control capability gives the president options, strengthens deterrence, and helps ensure that U.S. forces can fight--and prevail--if deterrence fails. The American way of life and war depend upon it.
* * *
Lieutenant General DeAnna M. Burt, U.S. Space Force (Retired), is a senior associate (non-resident) in the Aerospace Security Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Kari A, Bingen is director of the Aerospace Security Project and senior fellow in the Defense and Security Department at CSIS.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/space-superiority-and-military-tools-secure-it
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: 25 Years After the Anthrax Attacks, Reauthorize and Modernize PAHPA to Better Protect Americans
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary:
* * *
25 Years After the Anthrax Attacks, Reauthorize and Modernize PAHPA to Better Protect Americans
Commentary by Paul Friedrichs and Sophia Hirshfield
October 19, 2026
Reports last week of suspicious letters containing white powder mailed to congressional offices serve as an unsettling reminder of the anthrax attacks that rattled Americans shortly after al Qaeda's 9/11 attacks. In the wake of those 2001 attacks, roughly 32,000 people across multiple states were offered antibiotics. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary: * * * 25 Years After the Anthrax Attacks, Reauthorize and Modernize PAHPA to Better Protect Americans Commentary by Paul Friedrichs and Sophia Hirshfield October 19, 2026 Reports last week of suspicious letters containing white powder mailed to congressional offices serve as an unsettling reminder of the anthrax attacks that rattled Americans shortly after al Qaeda's 9/11 attacks. In the wake of those 2001 attacks, roughly 32,000 people across multiple states were offered antibiotics.Overall, 31 people tested positive for exposure to anthrax, 22 more people developed symptoms of anthrax infections, and 5 Americans were killed. Multiple buildings were contaminated, requiring hundreds of millions of dollars to remediate over two years. The FBI's investigation became one of the "largest and most complex in the history of law enforcement," but the perpetrator was never identified. Subsequent reviews confirmed the urgent need to improve the United States' ability to detect and attribute the source of biological attacks.
On October 7, 2026, the CSIS Bipartisan Alliance for Global Health Security hosted a discussion to mark the 25th anniversary of the anthrax attacks. Senior U.S. health security leaders recounted their personal experiences in managing the harrowing crisis in the fall of 2001 and described how these attacks triggered action by the George W. Bush administration and Congress to enhance the U.S. biodefense infrastructure.
Now, 25 years later, the biological threat landscape is becoming even riskier. U.S. biological defenses are weakened, and the time has arrived, again, for Congress to refresh its thinking and lead in upgrading concrete U.S. capabilities.
The Anthrax Attacks Inspired Congress to Act, but Gaps Remain
In the aftermath of the anthrax attacks, Congress recognized that further measures were needed to protect the United States against biological threats. In 2004, Congress authorized Project BioShield to hasten work on medical countermeasures to protect against infectious diseases that could impact national security. In 2006, Congress enacted the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (PAHPA), which addressed vital gaps in U.S. emergency preparedness and response capabilities for multiple health security threats. During the 2001 anthrax response, the United States had sufficient antibiotics stockpiled to protect everyone who had been exposed, but such readiness was not in place across the range of possible threats. Recognizing that more was needed to create new defenses, PAHPA created the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA). BARDA's support has resulted in 53 therapeutics and vaccines that have received licenses, approvals, or clearances from the Food and Drug Administration.
Today, more action is needed to meet the rising threat level. Pathogens that cause infections such as anthrax can mutate in ways that make them resistant to current therapeutics, and recent advances in synthetic biology make it easier to modify these pathogens in ways that make current countermeasures ineffective. Congress should act to ensure that the United States develops and funds a clear industrial policy that reduces risks of misuse and incentivizes researchers and manufacturers to ensure the country is prepared to protect the American public from both traditional and novel biological threats.
The 2001 anthrax attacks also revealed that the United States lacked a clear national authority to coordinate a response to bioterrorist emergencies. PAHPA established the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR), which would both coordinate internal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) efforts and bridge federal and state responders to close this gap. While ASPR has fostered internal HHS coordination and integration, subsequent outbreaks have shown that this structure falls short in coordinating interagency planning and response. In 2023, Congress authorized, but did not fund, the White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy to integrate these activities across departments and agencies. The current status of that office is unclear. Today, Congress once again has an opportunity to act to clarify federal roles and responsibilities in a biological emergency.
In 2001, there was no surveillance system that monitored for deliberate biological attacks. Since then, some progress has been made to integrate intelligence, public health, and other data streams, but more action is needed by Congress to improve the United States' ability to detect indications of a threat before an attack and to prevent an attack altogether.
Deliberate Biological Threats Are Rising as Capabilities Decline
In 2025, the U.S. State Department confirmed that North Korea and Russia maintain offensive bioweapons programs and raised concern about similar programs in China and Iran. The intelligence community's 2026 Annual Threat Assessment notes that these threats continue to grow.
While bioweapons have historically been challenging to create and deploy, it is now becoming cheaper, faster, and easier for both state and nonstate actors to develop bioweapons. Without safeguards, AI and other advanced biotechnology tools lower the knowledge barrier to create harmful biological agents. China has implemented an AI governance framework to protect its public from such risks, while the United States has not. Other potential avenues to prevent the creation of bioweapons, such as advancing lab biosafety and biosecurity protections and screening biological materials purchases, have advanced slowly and inconsistently. The United States has not imposed regulations on the companies that produce equipment and biological materials that could be used for nefarious purposes, nor has it updated oversight of the companies and researchers who are using these tools.
Since 2001, the U.S. healthcare system has become much more expensive, while delivering worse outcomes than other high-income countries. Shortages of doctors, nurses, and other key personnel are growing. The number of Americans with chronic diseases, which can make them more vulnerable to biological threats, has grown, while recent federal actions--including efforts to create mistrust of vaccines and researchers and historically deep cuts to budgets, staff, and programming--have only compounded persistent vulnerabilities and weakened core U.S. national security and public health capabilities. "Make America Healthy Again" is a laudable goal, but it has resulted in little tangible action to improve the U.S. healthcare system or U.S. national security.
The Imperative for Congress to Act Again
Although 25 years have passed since the last biological attack on U.S. soil, the United States cannot afford to become complacent and unprepared for the real and rising risk of future deliberate biological events. Congress updated and reauthorized PAHPA with bipartisan support in both 2013 and 2019, but it allowed these authorities to lapse in 2023. It is time for Congress to reauthorize and modernize PAHPA to more clearly define interagency roles and responsibilities, enhance U.S. biosurveillance capabilities to detect emerging biological threats, strengthen oversight of AI-driven risks, and better protect the American people from evolving biological threats.
* * *
Paul Friedrichs is a senior adviser (non-resident) with the Global Health Policy Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Sophia Hirshfield is an associate fellow in the Global Health Policy Center at CSIS.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/25-years-after-anthrax-attacks-reauthorize-and-modernize-pahpa-better-protect-americans
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
25 Years After the Anthrax Attacks, Reauthorize and Modernize PAHPA to Better Protect Americans
Commentary by Paul Friedrichs and Sophia Hirshfield
October 19, 2026
Reports last week of suspicious letters containing white powder mailed to congressional offices serve as an unsettling reminder of the anthrax attacks that rattled Americans shortly after al Qaeda's 9/11 attacks. In the wake of those 2001 attacks, roughly 32,000 people across multiple states were offered antibiotics. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary: * * * 25 Years After the Anthrax Attacks, Reauthorize and Modernize PAHPA to Better Protect Americans Commentary by Paul Friedrichs and Sophia Hirshfield October 19, 2026 Reports last week of suspicious letters containing white powder mailed to congressional offices serve as an unsettling reminder of the anthrax attacks that rattled Americans shortly after al Qaeda's 9/11 attacks. In the wake of those 2001 attacks, roughly 32,000 people across multiple states were offered antibiotics.Overall, 31 people tested positive for exposure to anthrax, 22 more people developed symptoms of anthrax infections, and 5 Americans were killed. Multiple buildings were contaminated, requiring hundreds of millions of dollars to remediate over two years. The FBI's investigation became one of the "largest and most complex in the history of law enforcement," but the perpetrator was never identified. Subsequent reviews confirmed the urgent need to improve the United States' ability to detect and attribute the source of biological attacks.
On October 7, 2026, the CSIS Bipartisan Alliance for Global Health Security hosted a discussion to mark the 25th anniversary of the anthrax attacks. Senior U.S. health security leaders recounted their personal experiences in managing the harrowing crisis in the fall of 2001 and described how these attacks triggered action by the George W. Bush administration and Congress to enhance the U.S. biodefense infrastructure.
Now, 25 years later, the biological threat landscape is becoming even riskier. U.S. biological defenses are weakened, and the time has arrived, again, for Congress to refresh its thinking and lead in upgrading concrete U.S. capabilities.
The Anthrax Attacks Inspired Congress to Act, but Gaps Remain
In the aftermath of the anthrax attacks, Congress recognized that further measures were needed to protect the United States against biological threats. In 2004, Congress authorized Project BioShield to hasten work on medical countermeasures to protect against infectious diseases that could impact national security. In 2006, Congress enacted the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (PAHPA), which addressed vital gaps in U.S. emergency preparedness and response capabilities for multiple health security threats. During the 2001 anthrax response, the United States had sufficient antibiotics stockpiled to protect everyone who had been exposed, but such readiness was not in place across the range of possible threats. Recognizing that more was needed to create new defenses, PAHPA created the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA). BARDA's support has resulted in 53 therapeutics and vaccines that have received licenses, approvals, or clearances from the Food and Drug Administration.
Today, more action is needed to meet the rising threat level. Pathogens that cause infections such as anthrax can mutate in ways that make them resistant to current therapeutics, and recent advances in synthetic biology make it easier to modify these pathogens in ways that make current countermeasures ineffective. Congress should act to ensure that the United States develops and funds a clear industrial policy that reduces risks of misuse and incentivizes researchers and manufacturers to ensure the country is prepared to protect the American public from both traditional and novel biological threats.
The 2001 anthrax attacks also revealed that the United States lacked a clear national authority to coordinate a response to bioterrorist emergencies. PAHPA established the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR), which would both coordinate internal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) efforts and bridge federal and state responders to close this gap. While ASPR has fostered internal HHS coordination and integration, subsequent outbreaks have shown that this structure falls short in coordinating interagency planning and response. In 2023, Congress authorized, but did not fund, the White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy to integrate these activities across departments and agencies. The current status of that office is unclear. Today, Congress once again has an opportunity to act to clarify federal roles and responsibilities in a biological emergency.
In 2001, there was no surveillance system that monitored for deliberate biological attacks. Since then, some progress has been made to integrate intelligence, public health, and other data streams, but more action is needed by Congress to improve the United States' ability to detect indications of a threat before an attack and to prevent an attack altogether.
Deliberate Biological Threats Are Rising as Capabilities Decline
In 2025, the U.S. State Department confirmed that North Korea and Russia maintain offensive bioweapons programs and raised concern about similar programs in China and Iran. The intelligence community's 2026 Annual Threat Assessment notes that these threats continue to grow.
While bioweapons have historically been challenging to create and deploy, it is now becoming cheaper, faster, and easier for both state and nonstate actors to develop bioweapons. Without safeguards, AI and other advanced biotechnology tools lower the knowledge barrier to create harmful biological agents. China has implemented an AI governance framework to protect its public from such risks, while the United States has not. Other potential avenues to prevent the creation of bioweapons, such as advancing lab biosafety and biosecurity protections and screening biological materials purchases, have advanced slowly and inconsistently. The United States has not imposed regulations on the companies that produce equipment and biological materials that could be used for nefarious purposes, nor has it updated oversight of the companies and researchers who are using these tools.
Since 2001, the U.S. healthcare system has become much more expensive, while delivering worse outcomes than other high-income countries. Shortages of doctors, nurses, and other key personnel are growing. The number of Americans with chronic diseases, which can make them more vulnerable to biological threats, has grown, while recent federal actions--including efforts to create mistrust of vaccines and researchers and historically deep cuts to budgets, staff, and programming--have only compounded persistent vulnerabilities and weakened core U.S. national security and public health capabilities. "Make America Healthy Again" is a laudable goal, but it has resulted in little tangible action to improve the U.S. healthcare system or U.S. national security.
The Imperative for Congress to Act Again
Although 25 years have passed since the last biological attack on U.S. soil, the United States cannot afford to become complacent and unprepared for the real and rising risk of future deliberate biological events. Congress updated and reauthorized PAHPA with bipartisan support in both 2013 and 2019, but it allowed these authorities to lapse in 2023. It is time for Congress to reauthorize and modernize PAHPA to more clearly define interagency roles and responsibilities, enhance U.S. biosurveillance capabilities to detect emerging biological threats, strengthen oversight of AI-driven risks, and better protect the American people from evolving biological threats.
* * *
Paul Friedrichs is a senior adviser (non-resident) with the Global Health Policy Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Sophia Hirshfield is an associate fellow in the Global Health Policy Center at CSIS.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/25-years-after-anthrax-attacks-reauthorize-and-modernize-pahpa-better-protect-americans
[Category: ThinkTank]
American Action Forum Issues Insight: Tracker - Federal Reserve's Balance Sheet Assets
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 -- The American Action Forum issued the following insight:
* * *
October 19, 2026
Tracker: The Federal Reserve's Balance Sheet Assets
Thomas Kingsley
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 ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 -- The American Action Forum issued the following insight: * * * October 19, 2026 Tracker: The Federal Reserve's Balance Sheet Assets Thomas Kingsley 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 determineshow 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 October 14, the Fed's assets stand at $6.8 trillion, up $8 billion from the prior week and over $159 billion higher than 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]
* * *
October 19, 2026
Tracker: The Federal Reserve's Balance Sheet Assets
Thomas Kingsley
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 ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 -- The American Action Forum issued the following insight: * * * October 19, 2026 Tracker: The Federal Reserve's Balance Sheet Assets Thomas Kingsley 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 determineshow 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 October 14, the Fed's assets stand at $6.8 trillion, up $8 billion from the prior week and over $159 billion higher than 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: Protecting Victims - Kayleigh's Law is Underway in Pa.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release:
* * *
Protecting Victims: Kayleigh's Law is Underway in PA
October 19, 2026
HARRISBURG, PA -- The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) applauds the Pennsylvania Senate for the bipartisan passage of Senate Bill 1484, also known as Kayleigh's Law, legislation named after AFPI's own Kayleigh Kozak. This legislation provides lifetime no-contact protections for victims of certain covered offenses, including sexual and violent crimes.
First introduced by Sen. Tracy Pennycuick, SB 1484 marks a significant ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release: * * * Protecting Victims: Kayleigh's Law is Underway in PA October 19, 2026 HARRISBURG, PA -- The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) applauds the Pennsylvania Senate for the bipartisan passage of Senate Bill 1484, also known as Kayleigh's Law, legislation named after AFPI's own Kayleigh Kozak. This legislation provides lifetime no-contact protections for victims of certain covered offenses, including sexual and violent crimes. First introduced by Sen. Tracy Pennycuick, SB 1484 marks a significantmilestone as the first AFPI model legislation introduced in Pennsylvania. The legislation would allow a court, at the request of a victim or prosecutor, to issue an injunction at sentencing, thereby ensuring that a survivor's protection does not simply disappear when an defendants' probation, parole, or other post-conviction conditions end.
Kayleigh's own experience helped inspire the policy, and her bravery is making a difference for victims of crime around the country. After being sexually abused as a child, she was later forced to return to court when her abuser sought to end his lifetime probation, discovering that her direct protection would end with it. Since then, Kayleigh has been tirelessly advocating to ensure other survivors do not face the same reality.
"This is an important step forward for survivors in Pennsylvania," said AFPI's Kayleigh Kozak. "Victims should not have to repeatedly return to court or face the possibility of unwanted contact. I'm incredibly grateful to Senator Pennycuick and the Pennsylvania State Senate for putting victims first. I look forward to another state standing beside victims and providing the permanent protections they deserve from the individual convicted of harming them."
Kayleigh's Law has already been enacted in several states, and AFPI continues to champion the policy as a model for protecting survivors and strengthening victims' rights across the country. Learn more here (https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/kayleighs-law-model-state-legislation/).
* * *
Original text here: https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/protecting-victims-kayleighs-law-is-underway-in-pa/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Protecting Victims: Kayleigh's Law is Underway in PA
October 19, 2026
HARRISBURG, PA -- The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) applauds the Pennsylvania Senate for the bipartisan passage of Senate Bill 1484, also known as Kayleigh's Law, legislation named after AFPI's own Kayleigh Kozak. This legislation provides lifetime no-contact protections for victims of certain covered offenses, including sexual and violent crimes.
First introduced by Sen. Tracy Pennycuick, SB 1484 marks a significant ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release: * * * Protecting Victims: Kayleigh's Law is Underway in PA October 19, 2026 HARRISBURG, PA -- The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) applauds the Pennsylvania Senate for the bipartisan passage of Senate Bill 1484, also known as Kayleigh's Law, legislation named after AFPI's own Kayleigh Kozak. This legislation provides lifetime no-contact protections for victims of certain covered offenses, including sexual and violent crimes. First introduced by Sen. Tracy Pennycuick, SB 1484 marks a significantmilestone as the first AFPI model legislation introduced in Pennsylvania. The legislation would allow a court, at the request of a victim or prosecutor, to issue an injunction at sentencing, thereby ensuring that a survivor's protection does not simply disappear when an defendants' probation, parole, or other post-conviction conditions end.
Kayleigh's own experience helped inspire the policy, and her bravery is making a difference for victims of crime around the country. After being sexually abused as a child, she was later forced to return to court when her abuser sought to end his lifetime probation, discovering that her direct protection would end with it. Since then, Kayleigh has been tirelessly advocating to ensure other survivors do not face the same reality.
"This is an important step forward for survivors in Pennsylvania," said AFPI's Kayleigh Kozak. "Victims should not have to repeatedly return to court or face the possibility of unwanted contact. I'm incredibly grateful to Senator Pennycuick and the Pennsylvania State Senate for putting victims first. I look forward to another state standing beside victims and providing the permanent protections they deserve from the individual convicted of harming them."
Kayleigh's Law has already been enacted in several states, and AFPI continues to champion the policy as a model for protecting survivors and strengthening victims' rights across the country. Learn more here (https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/kayleighs-law-model-state-legislation/).
* * *
Original text here: https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/protecting-victims-kayleighs-law-is-underway-in-pa/
[Category: ThinkTank]