Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Jamestown Foundation Issues Commentary: Taliban Claims Cross-Border Strikes on ISKP in Pakistan
WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on Oct. 23, 2025, in the foundation's Terrorism Monitor:
* * *
Taliban Claims Cross-Border Strikes on ISKP in Pakistan
Barakwal Myakhel
Executive Summary:
* On June 19, the Taliban claimed cross-border strikes on Islamic State in Khorasan Province (ISKP) hideouts in Pakistan, a claim Pakistan dismissed as propaganda and countered that ISKP militants actually operate from within Afghan territory.
* These mutual accusations have fueled a cycle of military escalation, with Pakistan conducting multiple airstrikes ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on Oct. 23, 2025, in the foundation's Terrorism Monitor: * * * Taliban Claims Cross-Border Strikes on ISKP in Pakistan Barakwal Myakhel Executive Summary: * On June 19, the Taliban claimed cross-border strikes on Islamic State in Khorasan Province (ISKP) hideouts in Pakistan, a claim Pakistan dismissed as propaganda and countered that ISKP militants actually operate from within Afghan territory. * These mutual accusations have fueled a cycle of military escalation, with Pakistan conducting multiple airstrikesinside Afghanistan targeting alleged militant sanctuaries.
* International mediation efforts have not produced a durable diplomatic settlement. This mutual distrust and lack of border coordination allow ISKP to easily exploit ungoverned spaces for continued transnational activity
-
On June 19, the Taliban regime's Defense Ministry claimed its forces "targeted and struck hard" at centers of Islamic State in Khorasan Province (ISKP) in Pakistan's Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces (X/@MoDAfghanistan2, June 19). Pakistan promptly denied the claim and described it as propaganda. If confirmed, however, the operation would mark the first publicly claimed Taliban cross-border strike against ISKP targets in Pakistan since the May ceasefire.
Taliban Claims ISKP Bases in Pakistan
ISKP has claimed responsibility for multiple deadly attacks inside Afghanistan since the Taliban seized power in 2021. The Taliban regime has repeatedly claimed that it has defeated ISKP inside Afghanistan, while accusing the group of maintaining bases in Pakistan's Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces and using those locations to organize cross-border attacks. Pakistan has consistently denied those allegations. According to the Taliban Defense Ministry statement, the sites it targeted were allegedly used with support from "certain hostile intelligence circles" to plan and coordinate attacks against Afghanistan. The statement appeared to allude to Pakistani intelligence agencies. The Taliban did not, however, provide evidence to substantiate the claim.
The Taliban claimed that its forces struck locations in the Gulistan area of Qila Abdullah district and the Shakar Ab Gardi-Jungle area of Chagai district in Balochistan, as well as the Qamber Khel area of Orakzai district in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The statement asserted that the targeted hideouts were frequented by several key ISKP leaders, but it did not identify any senior figures killed in the operation (X/@MoDAfghanistan2, June 19).
Pakistan's Reaction
Pakistan's Ministry of Information and Broadcasting called the Taliban's claim "fake and nefarious." The Ministry countered that camps belonging to ISKP and more than "two dozen" other militant organizations are located, run, and sponsored from inside Afghanistan (X/@FactCheckerMoIB, June 19). The Taliban regime has, however, frequently denied Pakistani allegations that Afghan territory is used by militants to attack Pakistan.
Prior to the reported June 19 Taliban strikes on ISKP in Pakistan, mutual accusations had already led to military escalation. Pakistan had carried out airstrikes inside Afghanistan since at least October 2025 against alleged militant sanctuaries. The most recent strikes before the Taliban's June 19 claim occurred on June 10, in Afghanistan's Kunar, Khost, and Paktika provinces. Pakistani Information Minister Attaullah Tarar claimed that 26 "terrorists" were killed by Pakistan (X/@TararAttaullah, June 10). The Taliban regime, by contrast, counter-claimed that 13 civilians, including children, were killed.
The cycle of cross-border escalation continued after the Taliban's June 19 claim. On June 28, Pakistan carried out airstrikes in Afghanistan's Paktya, Paktika, and Kunar provinces. The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) confirmed that at least 28 civilians were killed and 49 injured, including women and children, while Pakistan's Ministry of Information and Broadcasting confirmed that Pakistani security forces had conducted strikes in the three provinces (UNAMA, June 29). In early August, Pakistan's military rejected broader UN findings on civilian casualties from Pakistani operations in Afghanistan, maintaining that its strikes targeted militant hideouts and were conducted in self-defense (CTPost, July 31).
It remains unclear how the Taliban may have carried out strikes inside Pakistan on June 19. Afghanistan has lacked combat aircraft since the collapse of the U.S.-backed Afghan republic and the international withdrawal. The Taliban has only a small air inventory, including six aircraft and 22 helicopters of uncertain operational status, although Taliban forces have used drones during clashes with Pakistan (Reuters, March 17). The Taliban had also previously claimed drone strikes against targets in Pakistan amid intensifying cross-border tensions (Reuters, February 27).
There are no verified reports on how the Taliban regime acquired its drones. Ahmad Zia Saraj, former director general of Afghanistan's National Directorate of Security (NDS), claims, however, that the Taliban mostly "purchase drones from open markets." In an interview with Afghanistan International, Saraj asserted the Taliban modified these commercially available drones to carry explosives (Afghanistan International, June 20; X/@TKCKhyber, June 23).
Search for a Settlement
Former U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad has frequently commented on Afghanistan-Pakistan military escalations. He has urged both countries to pursue diplomacy and reach an agreement under which neither side allows groups or individuals on its territory to threaten the other country's security (X/@realZalmayMK, June 19).
The conflict has also disrupted trade and civilian movements across the Durand Line. The People's Republic of China, Turkiye, and Qatar have attempted to mediate between Afghanistan and Pakistan and encourage both sides to address each other's security concerns. No durable settlement has been reached, however, and the conflict continues to affect border communities, commerce, and regional security.
Pakistan says it is ready to engage the Taliban regime diplomatically but wants guarantees that Afghan soil will not be used for militant attacks in Pakistan. Tahir Andrabi, Pakistan's Foreign Ministry spokesman, told a news conference that Islamabad wants "verifiable commitments" from the Afghan side that militants allegedly operating from across the Durand Line will no longer kill Pakistani nationals (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan, June 24). The Taliban's Foreign Ministry has not yet responded to Pakistan's latest demand.
Conclusion
The Taliban's claimed June 19 strikes against ISKP targets in Pakistan, if confirmed, would represent a notable escalation in the Afghanistan-Pakistan security dispute. They also demonstrate how ISKP has become both a direct security threat and a point of diplomatic contention between Kabul and Islamabad. The Taliban's claim that ISKP operates from Pakistani soil and Pakistan's counterclaim that IS-K and other militant groups operate from Afghanistan reflect a deepening cycle of accusation and retaliation.
Indeed, on June 17, Turkiye's National Intelligence Organization (MIT) captured a suspected senior Islamic State operative, Ahmet Kazanci, also known as "Abu Ubeyde" and "Abu Ibrahim," and rendered him to Turkiye. The operation targeted the ISKP media wing, and Turkish security sources alleged Kazanci had traveled from Turkiye to the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, joined ISKP, and played a role in the group's camps (Anadolu Agency, June 17). The case underscored the transnational dimensions of ISKP's recruitment, media, and logistics networks in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region and beyond.
Unless both sides establish credible mechanisms for intelligence sharing, border de-escalation, and commitments not to support or tolerate cross-border militant activity, tensions are likely to persist. ISKP may benefit from this environment by exploiting ungoverned spaces, mutual distrust, and the lack of coordinated counterterrorism efforts across the border.
* * *
Barakwal Myakhel holds a master's degree in literature from the University of Balochistan, Pakistan. He worked as a correspondent for Radio Free Europe in Balochistan for almost eleven years. Since 2017, he has worked as an international broadcaster with Voice of America's Deewa Service in Washington, D.C., covering militancy in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the Baloch separatist movement, and human rights issues.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/taliban-claims-cross-border-strikes-on-iskp-in-pakistan/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Taliban Claims Cross-Border Strikes on ISKP in Pakistan
Barakwal Myakhel
Executive Summary:
* On June 19, the Taliban claimed cross-border strikes on Islamic State in Khorasan Province (ISKP) hideouts in Pakistan, a claim Pakistan dismissed as propaganda and countered that ISKP militants actually operate from within Afghan territory.
* These mutual accusations have fueled a cycle of military escalation, with Pakistan conducting multiple airstrikes ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on Oct. 23, 2025, in the foundation's Terrorism Monitor: * * * Taliban Claims Cross-Border Strikes on ISKP in Pakistan Barakwal Myakhel Executive Summary: * On June 19, the Taliban claimed cross-border strikes on Islamic State in Khorasan Province (ISKP) hideouts in Pakistan, a claim Pakistan dismissed as propaganda and countered that ISKP militants actually operate from within Afghan territory. * These mutual accusations have fueled a cycle of military escalation, with Pakistan conducting multiple airstrikesinside Afghanistan targeting alleged militant sanctuaries.
* International mediation efforts have not produced a durable diplomatic settlement. This mutual distrust and lack of border coordination allow ISKP to easily exploit ungoverned spaces for continued transnational activity
-
On June 19, the Taliban regime's Defense Ministry claimed its forces "targeted and struck hard" at centers of Islamic State in Khorasan Province (ISKP) in Pakistan's Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces (X/@MoDAfghanistan2, June 19). Pakistan promptly denied the claim and described it as propaganda. If confirmed, however, the operation would mark the first publicly claimed Taliban cross-border strike against ISKP targets in Pakistan since the May ceasefire.
Taliban Claims ISKP Bases in Pakistan
ISKP has claimed responsibility for multiple deadly attacks inside Afghanistan since the Taliban seized power in 2021. The Taliban regime has repeatedly claimed that it has defeated ISKP inside Afghanistan, while accusing the group of maintaining bases in Pakistan's Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces and using those locations to organize cross-border attacks. Pakistan has consistently denied those allegations. According to the Taliban Defense Ministry statement, the sites it targeted were allegedly used with support from "certain hostile intelligence circles" to plan and coordinate attacks against Afghanistan. The statement appeared to allude to Pakistani intelligence agencies. The Taliban did not, however, provide evidence to substantiate the claim.
The Taliban claimed that its forces struck locations in the Gulistan area of Qila Abdullah district and the Shakar Ab Gardi-Jungle area of Chagai district in Balochistan, as well as the Qamber Khel area of Orakzai district in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The statement asserted that the targeted hideouts were frequented by several key ISKP leaders, but it did not identify any senior figures killed in the operation (X/@MoDAfghanistan2, June 19).
Pakistan's Reaction
Pakistan's Ministry of Information and Broadcasting called the Taliban's claim "fake and nefarious." The Ministry countered that camps belonging to ISKP and more than "two dozen" other militant organizations are located, run, and sponsored from inside Afghanistan (X/@FactCheckerMoIB, June 19). The Taliban regime has, however, frequently denied Pakistani allegations that Afghan territory is used by militants to attack Pakistan.
Prior to the reported June 19 Taliban strikes on ISKP in Pakistan, mutual accusations had already led to military escalation. Pakistan had carried out airstrikes inside Afghanistan since at least October 2025 against alleged militant sanctuaries. The most recent strikes before the Taliban's June 19 claim occurred on June 10, in Afghanistan's Kunar, Khost, and Paktika provinces. Pakistani Information Minister Attaullah Tarar claimed that 26 "terrorists" were killed by Pakistan (X/@TararAttaullah, June 10). The Taliban regime, by contrast, counter-claimed that 13 civilians, including children, were killed.
The cycle of cross-border escalation continued after the Taliban's June 19 claim. On June 28, Pakistan carried out airstrikes in Afghanistan's Paktya, Paktika, and Kunar provinces. The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) confirmed that at least 28 civilians were killed and 49 injured, including women and children, while Pakistan's Ministry of Information and Broadcasting confirmed that Pakistani security forces had conducted strikes in the three provinces (UNAMA, June 29). In early August, Pakistan's military rejected broader UN findings on civilian casualties from Pakistani operations in Afghanistan, maintaining that its strikes targeted militant hideouts and were conducted in self-defense (CTPost, July 31).
It remains unclear how the Taliban may have carried out strikes inside Pakistan on June 19. Afghanistan has lacked combat aircraft since the collapse of the U.S.-backed Afghan republic and the international withdrawal. The Taliban has only a small air inventory, including six aircraft and 22 helicopters of uncertain operational status, although Taliban forces have used drones during clashes with Pakistan (Reuters, March 17). The Taliban had also previously claimed drone strikes against targets in Pakistan amid intensifying cross-border tensions (Reuters, February 27).
There are no verified reports on how the Taliban regime acquired its drones. Ahmad Zia Saraj, former director general of Afghanistan's National Directorate of Security (NDS), claims, however, that the Taliban mostly "purchase drones from open markets." In an interview with Afghanistan International, Saraj asserted the Taliban modified these commercially available drones to carry explosives (Afghanistan International, June 20; X/@TKCKhyber, June 23).
Search for a Settlement
Former U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad has frequently commented on Afghanistan-Pakistan military escalations. He has urged both countries to pursue diplomacy and reach an agreement under which neither side allows groups or individuals on its territory to threaten the other country's security (X/@realZalmayMK, June 19).
The conflict has also disrupted trade and civilian movements across the Durand Line. The People's Republic of China, Turkiye, and Qatar have attempted to mediate between Afghanistan and Pakistan and encourage both sides to address each other's security concerns. No durable settlement has been reached, however, and the conflict continues to affect border communities, commerce, and regional security.
Pakistan says it is ready to engage the Taliban regime diplomatically but wants guarantees that Afghan soil will not be used for militant attacks in Pakistan. Tahir Andrabi, Pakistan's Foreign Ministry spokesman, told a news conference that Islamabad wants "verifiable commitments" from the Afghan side that militants allegedly operating from across the Durand Line will no longer kill Pakistani nationals (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan, June 24). The Taliban's Foreign Ministry has not yet responded to Pakistan's latest demand.
Conclusion
The Taliban's claimed June 19 strikes against ISKP targets in Pakistan, if confirmed, would represent a notable escalation in the Afghanistan-Pakistan security dispute. They also demonstrate how ISKP has become both a direct security threat and a point of diplomatic contention between Kabul and Islamabad. The Taliban's claim that ISKP operates from Pakistani soil and Pakistan's counterclaim that IS-K and other militant groups operate from Afghanistan reflect a deepening cycle of accusation and retaliation.
Indeed, on June 17, Turkiye's National Intelligence Organization (MIT) captured a suspected senior Islamic State operative, Ahmet Kazanci, also known as "Abu Ubeyde" and "Abu Ibrahim," and rendered him to Turkiye. The operation targeted the ISKP media wing, and Turkish security sources alleged Kazanci had traveled from Turkiye to the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, joined ISKP, and played a role in the group's camps (Anadolu Agency, June 17). The case underscored the transnational dimensions of ISKP's recruitment, media, and logistics networks in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region and beyond.
Unless both sides establish credible mechanisms for intelligence sharing, border de-escalation, and commitments not to support or tolerate cross-border militant activity, tensions are likely to persist. ISKP may benefit from this environment by exploiting ungoverned spaces, mutual distrust, and the lack of coordinated counterterrorism efforts across the border.
* * *
Barakwal Myakhel holds a master's degree in literature from the University of Balochistan, Pakistan. He worked as a correspondent for Radio Free Europe in Balochistan for almost eleven years. Since 2017, he has worked as an international broadcaster with Voice of America's Deewa Service in Washington, D.C., covering militancy in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the Baloch separatist movement, and human rights issues.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/taliban-claims-cross-border-strikes-on-iskp-in-pakistan/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Jamestown Foundation Issues Commentary: Post-Election Speculation Mounted About Kiriyenko's Kremlin Position
WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on Oct. 22, 2026, in the foundation's Eurasia Daily Monitor:
* * *
Post-Election Speculation Mounted About Kiriyenko's Kremlin Position
Alex Horobets
Executive Summary:
* First Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Administration Sergei Kiriyenko's absence from Russian President Vladimir Putin's September 28 meeting with the leaders of political parties that won seats in the recent State Duma election and the Federal Security Service (FSB)-led arrest of political scientist Alexander Kynev, who was obliquely ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on Oct. 22, 2026, in the foundation's Eurasia Daily Monitor: * * * Post-Election Speculation Mounted About Kiriyenko's Kremlin Position Alex Horobets Executive Summary: * First Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Administration Sergei Kiriyenko's absence from Russian President Vladimir Putin's September 28 meeting with the leaders of political parties that won seats in the recent State Duma election and the Federal Security Service (FSB)-led arrest of political scientist Alexander Kynev, who was obliquelyassociated with Kiriyenko, raised speculation about the Kremlin domestic policy bloc losing autonomy and protection.
* Kiriyenko's cooling ties with the Kovalchuk family, billionaires close with Putin, and the security services' growing independence may have weakened his support network. Rumored next steps include a loss of domestic policy control, a move to Moscow City Hall, or another government posting.
* For now, Kiriyenko's absence from the September meeting and the Kynev arrest are indicators of possible tensions within the Presidential Administration, though Kiriyenko has resumed public appearances in his role. In a system where official statements rarely reflect the actual distribution of power, such signals are what make it possible to track the shifting dynamics beneath the surface of Russian politics.
-
On September 28, Russian President Vladimir Putin held a meeting in the Kremlin with the leaders of political parties that won seats in the recent State Duma election (President of Russia, September 28). This is a routine post-election meeting, in which Putin thanks the Central Election Commission for conducting the election, outlines the priorities for the new parliamentary term, and demonstrates that the political parties with power remain under his control. This time, however, Sergei Kiriyenko, first deputy chief of staff of the Presidential Administration and the official overseeing domestic policy, was absent. He is responsible for organizing the State Duma election campaign and its outcome. Instead, sitting to Putin's left was Alexei Gromov, another first deputy chief of staff who oversees information policy and relations with the media. The official explanation was that Kiriyenko had gone on vacation without waiting for the meeting to take place. In the Kremlin's political culture, however, the absence of a key official from a ceremonial meeting reviewing the results of his own work is rarely accidental. No major change involving Kiriyenko has been announced as of October 22, and he has continued to perform public duties in his position.
Russian authorities took political scientist Alexander Kynev into custody in Moscow a few days before the meeting. He is regarded as one of Russia's leading experts on elections and regional politics who remained in the country even after being designated as a foreign agent early this year (Nastoiashee Vremia, February 20; BBC Russian Service, September 25). Kynev described the latest State Duma election as "the most unfair" Duma election ever, and declared the victory of United Russia as the result of large-scale electoral fraud (Novaya Gazeta, September 29). Immediately after votes were counted, Kynev was detained in an operation involving Federal Security Service (FSB) officers and was severely beaten. He has been charged with attempted large-scale drug trafficking, but denies the allegations.
Kynev unofficially worked with New People, a political party part of the Kremlin-managed opposition regarded as close to Kiriyenko, in recent years (The Moscow Times, September 29). Kynev's arrest does not directly weaken Kiriyenko's position since the two were not personally close. Russian political circles, however, have been discussing the possibility that the security agencies did not alert Kiriyenko about the arrest until after the fact. The security services' arrest of Kynev sends the message that cooperation with the Presidential Administration's domestic policy bloc does not guarantee protection (Telegram/@russicaru, September 28).
Kiriyenko's absence from the post-election meeting and the high-profile detention of someone connected to his policy apparatus occurred amid frequent rumors of major personnel changes in the Kremlin before the end of this fall. The two moves deserve attention as signs of a potential realignment of power within the ruling elite, not as isolated scandals.
The Kremlin often appears monolithic from the outside. In practice, it is a system of competing factions in which influence is measured by formal positions, the ability to protect one's allies, and control of key processes. Since 2016, when he assumed his current position, Kiriyenko has built a relatively autonomous civilian apparatus for managing domestic politics, encompassing elections, regional governors, party projects, relations with the regions and, in part, soft power and Ukrainian territories occupied by Russia in 2014 and 2022. The success of the September State Duma election, with official turnout reported at almost 60 percent and United Russia securing a constitutional majority, should have strengthened Kiriyenko's position. Other trends, however, emerged immediately after the election. First, the security agencies demonstrated that they can intervene in civilian political structures, diminishing the value of protection from the Presidential Administration. Second, potential changes to Kiriyenko's position, along with the possible rise of other figures, have direct implications for the configuration of Russia's governing apparatus ahead of the next political succession cycle, after 2030--or earlier, depending on the state of the system--and for who will determine the terms of the transfer of power.
Russian Telegram channels focused on political affairs have reported a gradual distancing of relations between the Kovalchuk family and Kiriyenko. Yuri Kovalchuk, a billionaire and close friend of Putin, was previously considered one of the patrons who paved Kiriyenko's way into the Kremlin. Over time, however, the first deputy chief of staff accumulated his own bureaucratic clout and began acting more independently. Now, the Kovalchuks appear to prefer keeping their distance, observing events from the sidelines rather than protecting projects associated with Kiriyenko's circle (Telegram/@politpochta, September 29). At the same time, they are redirecting some of their projects toward Stepan and Kirill Kovalchuk. The cancellation of Kanye West concerts in St. Petersburg is a symbolic example. Structures linked to VKontakte, Russia's largest social media and technology company, headed by Kiriyenko's son, Vladimir, were responsible for organizing the event and managing its media coverage (Repost News, September 30).
Kynev's arrest adds to this broader pattern. Even if the political scientist was not personally close to Kiriyenko, he worked within the political infrastructure overseen by the Presidential Administration's domestic policy bloc. The fact that the security agencies apparently did not consider it necessary even to notify their counterparts in the Presidential Administration points to a shift in the rules of the game and growing independence on the part of the security services. It suggests that ties to Kiriyenko no longer guarantee protection from detention or physical abuse.
Against the backdrop of the possibility of further personnel changes in the Presidential Administration and the Russian government before the end of the fall, three potential scenarios for Kiriyenko's future are being discussed (Telegram/@taynaya_kantselyariya, September 21). The first is that Kiriyenko retains his position as first deputy chief of staff but loses control over domestic political affairs, which would be transferred to Chief of the Presidential Domestic Policy Directorate Andrei Yarin and the security agencies. Kiriyenko himself would be left to focus on international affairs. The second scenario involves his move to Moscow City Hall, accompanied by a substantial part of his team, potentially paving the way for incumbent Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin to return to the position of chief of staff of the Presidential Administration of Russia. The third option is a move into the government as deputy prime minister responsible for the fuel and energy sector. The Moscow scenario is the one most frequently discussed and is reportedly the most attractive to Kiriyenko himself. It raises the question, however, of what would happen to Sobyanin, who is an influential and well-resourced political player in his own right (Telegram/@taynaya_kantselyariya, September 21).
If Kiriyenko leaves the Presidential Administration, his most likely replacement would be Yarin. During his years working under Kiriyenko, Yarin has significantly increased his bureaucratic influence, becoming a key link between the civilian political apparatus and the security agencies (Telegram/@taynaya_kantselyariya, September 21). He has also earned a reputation as a disciplined executor of orders. If promoted, Yarin could not only inherit Kiriyenko's projects but also reshape them. Domestic politics, in turn, could come under tighter control by the security services.
Kiriyenko's potential move to Moscow City Hall, with the prospect of eventually becoming mayor, would weaken his direct influence over the federal domestic political machinery. He would lose his levers of control, the projects under his supervision, and his position in the president's inner circle. The longer-term implications, however, are far more significant. By the standards of Russia's political elite, Kiriyenko is relatively young. The Moscow mayoralty offers substantial resources, public visibility, control over the capital's budget and personnel, and the opportunity to build new networks as an independent political heavyweight. In the context of a future transfer of power, this could prove a more advantageous position than remaining the "perennial" first deputy chief of staff.
Kiriyenko's absence from one meeting and Kynev's arrest are not proof of an imminent dismissal. They do, however, offer insight into the trends surrounding Kiriyenko and the Presidential Administration as a whole. These developments suggest that the autonomy the first deputy chief of staff has built over the past decade is beginning to face constraints. His growing distance from former patrons has also weakened his network of support at precisely the moment when the security agencies are increasingly setting the rules without regard for civilian officials responsible for domestic politics.
The cabinet reshuffle that the Kremlin announced in October produced new appointments, but no change involving Kiriyenko (The Moscow Times, October 19). The latter would provide a more direct indicator of whether the balance of power within the Kremlin has shifted. A potential move by Kiriyenko to Moscow City Hall, followed eventually by his appointment as mayor, would create a political figure with substantial resources at his disposal. Meanwhile, Yarin's rise and the growing influence of the security agencies over domestic politics would strengthen the role of repressive and control mechanisms in the management of Russia's regions and political parties. For now, Kiriyenko's absence from the September meeting and the Kynev arrest appear to be more indicators of possible tensions within the Presidential Administration than evidence that Kiriyenko is on the verge of leaving his post. But in a system where official statements rarely reflect the actual distribution of power, such signals are precisely what make it possible to track the shifting tectonic plates beneath the surface of Russian politics. Ignoring them means viewing the Russian government as a static entity rather than as a living, conflict-ridden structure in a constant state of realignment.
* * *
Alex Horobets is a PhD candidate at the Institute of History of Ukraine National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, within the Department of International Relations and Foreign Policy of Ukraine. His main research topics include international politics and military activity in the Arctic.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/post-election-speculation-mounted-about-kiriyenkos-kremlin-position/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Post-Election Speculation Mounted About Kiriyenko's Kremlin Position
Alex Horobets
Executive Summary:
* First Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Administration Sergei Kiriyenko's absence from Russian President Vladimir Putin's September 28 meeting with the leaders of political parties that won seats in the recent State Duma election and the Federal Security Service (FSB)-led arrest of political scientist Alexander Kynev, who was obliquely ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on Oct. 22, 2026, in the foundation's Eurasia Daily Monitor: * * * Post-Election Speculation Mounted About Kiriyenko's Kremlin Position Alex Horobets Executive Summary: * First Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Administration Sergei Kiriyenko's absence from Russian President Vladimir Putin's September 28 meeting with the leaders of political parties that won seats in the recent State Duma election and the Federal Security Service (FSB)-led arrest of political scientist Alexander Kynev, who was obliquelyassociated with Kiriyenko, raised speculation about the Kremlin domestic policy bloc losing autonomy and protection.
* Kiriyenko's cooling ties with the Kovalchuk family, billionaires close with Putin, and the security services' growing independence may have weakened his support network. Rumored next steps include a loss of domestic policy control, a move to Moscow City Hall, or another government posting.
* For now, Kiriyenko's absence from the September meeting and the Kynev arrest are indicators of possible tensions within the Presidential Administration, though Kiriyenko has resumed public appearances in his role. In a system where official statements rarely reflect the actual distribution of power, such signals are what make it possible to track the shifting dynamics beneath the surface of Russian politics.
-
On September 28, Russian President Vladimir Putin held a meeting in the Kremlin with the leaders of political parties that won seats in the recent State Duma election (President of Russia, September 28). This is a routine post-election meeting, in which Putin thanks the Central Election Commission for conducting the election, outlines the priorities for the new parliamentary term, and demonstrates that the political parties with power remain under his control. This time, however, Sergei Kiriyenko, first deputy chief of staff of the Presidential Administration and the official overseeing domestic policy, was absent. He is responsible for organizing the State Duma election campaign and its outcome. Instead, sitting to Putin's left was Alexei Gromov, another first deputy chief of staff who oversees information policy and relations with the media. The official explanation was that Kiriyenko had gone on vacation without waiting for the meeting to take place. In the Kremlin's political culture, however, the absence of a key official from a ceremonial meeting reviewing the results of his own work is rarely accidental. No major change involving Kiriyenko has been announced as of October 22, and he has continued to perform public duties in his position.
Russian authorities took political scientist Alexander Kynev into custody in Moscow a few days before the meeting. He is regarded as one of Russia's leading experts on elections and regional politics who remained in the country even after being designated as a foreign agent early this year (Nastoiashee Vremia, February 20; BBC Russian Service, September 25). Kynev described the latest State Duma election as "the most unfair" Duma election ever, and declared the victory of United Russia as the result of large-scale electoral fraud (Novaya Gazeta, September 29). Immediately after votes were counted, Kynev was detained in an operation involving Federal Security Service (FSB) officers and was severely beaten. He has been charged with attempted large-scale drug trafficking, but denies the allegations.
Kynev unofficially worked with New People, a political party part of the Kremlin-managed opposition regarded as close to Kiriyenko, in recent years (The Moscow Times, September 29). Kynev's arrest does not directly weaken Kiriyenko's position since the two were not personally close. Russian political circles, however, have been discussing the possibility that the security agencies did not alert Kiriyenko about the arrest until after the fact. The security services' arrest of Kynev sends the message that cooperation with the Presidential Administration's domestic policy bloc does not guarantee protection (Telegram/@russicaru, September 28).
Kiriyenko's absence from the post-election meeting and the high-profile detention of someone connected to his policy apparatus occurred amid frequent rumors of major personnel changes in the Kremlin before the end of this fall. The two moves deserve attention as signs of a potential realignment of power within the ruling elite, not as isolated scandals.
The Kremlin often appears monolithic from the outside. In practice, it is a system of competing factions in which influence is measured by formal positions, the ability to protect one's allies, and control of key processes. Since 2016, when he assumed his current position, Kiriyenko has built a relatively autonomous civilian apparatus for managing domestic politics, encompassing elections, regional governors, party projects, relations with the regions and, in part, soft power and Ukrainian territories occupied by Russia in 2014 and 2022. The success of the September State Duma election, with official turnout reported at almost 60 percent and United Russia securing a constitutional majority, should have strengthened Kiriyenko's position. Other trends, however, emerged immediately after the election. First, the security agencies demonstrated that they can intervene in civilian political structures, diminishing the value of protection from the Presidential Administration. Second, potential changes to Kiriyenko's position, along with the possible rise of other figures, have direct implications for the configuration of Russia's governing apparatus ahead of the next political succession cycle, after 2030--or earlier, depending on the state of the system--and for who will determine the terms of the transfer of power.
Russian Telegram channels focused on political affairs have reported a gradual distancing of relations between the Kovalchuk family and Kiriyenko. Yuri Kovalchuk, a billionaire and close friend of Putin, was previously considered one of the patrons who paved Kiriyenko's way into the Kremlin. Over time, however, the first deputy chief of staff accumulated his own bureaucratic clout and began acting more independently. Now, the Kovalchuks appear to prefer keeping their distance, observing events from the sidelines rather than protecting projects associated with Kiriyenko's circle (Telegram/@politpochta, September 29). At the same time, they are redirecting some of their projects toward Stepan and Kirill Kovalchuk. The cancellation of Kanye West concerts in St. Petersburg is a symbolic example. Structures linked to VKontakte, Russia's largest social media and technology company, headed by Kiriyenko's son, Vladimir, were responsible for organizing the event and managing its media coverage (Repost News, September 30).
Kynev's arrest adds to this broader pattern. Even if the political scientist was not personally close to Kiriyenko, he worked within the political infrastructure overseen by the Presidential Administration's domestic policy bloc. The fact that the security agencies apparently did not consider it necessary even to notify their counterparts in the Presidential Administration points to a shift in the rules of the game and growing independence on the part of the security services. It suggests that ties to Kiriyenko no longer guarantee protection from detention or physical abuse.
Against the backdrop of the possibility of further personnel changes in the Presidential Administration and the Russian government before the end of the fall, three potential scenarios for Kiriyenko's future are being discussed (Telegram/@taynaya_kantselyariya, September 21). The first is that Kiriyenko retains his position as first deputy chief of staff but loses control over domestic political affairs, which would be transferred to Chief of the Presidential Domestic Policy Directorate Andrei Yarin and the security agencies. Kiriyenko himself would be left to focus on international affairs. The second scenario involves his move to Moscow City Hall, accompanied by a substantial part of his team, potentially paving the way for incumbent Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin to return to the position of chief of staff of the Presidential Administration of Russia. The third option is a move into the government as deputy prime minister responsible for the fuel and energy sector. The Moscow scenario is the one most frequently discussed and is reportedly the most attractive to Kiriyenko himself. It raises the question, however, of what would happen to Sobyanin, who is an influential and well-resourced political player in his own right (Telegram/@taynaya_kantselyariya, September 21).
If Kiriyenko leaves the Presidential Administration, his most likely replacement would be Yarin. During his years working under Kiriyenko, Yarin has significantly increased his bureaucratic influence, becoming a key link between the civilian political apparatus and the security agencies (Telegram/@taynaya_kantselyariya, September 21). He has also earned a reputation as a disciplined executor of orders. If promoted, Yarin could not only inherit Kiriyenko's projects but also reshape them. Domestic politics, in turn, could come under tighter control by the security services.
Kiriyenko's potential move to Moscow City Hall, with the prospect of eventually becoming mayor, would weaken his direct influence over the federal domestic political machinery. He would lose his levers of control, the projects under his supervision, and his position in the president's inner circle. The longer-term implications, however, are far more significant. By the standards of Russia's political elite, Kiriyenko is relatively young. The Moscow mayoralty offers substantial resources, public visibility, control over the capital's budget and personnel, and the opportunity to build new networks as an independent political heavyweight. In the context of a future transfer of power, this could prove a more advantageous position than remaining the "perennial" first deputy chief of staff.
Kiriyenko's absence from one meeting and Kynev's arrest are not proof of an imminent dismissal. They do, however, offer insight into the trends surrounding Kiriyenko and the Presidential Administration as a whole. These developments suggest that the autonomy the first deputy chief of staff has built over the past decade is beginning to face constraints. His growing distance from former patrons has also weakened his network of support at precisely the moment when the security agencies are increasingly setting the rules without regard for civilian officials responsible for domestic politics.
The cabinet reshuffle that the Kremlin announced in October produced new appointments, but no change involving Kiriyenko (The Moscow Times, October 19). The latter would provide a more direct indicator of whether the balance of power within the Kremlin has shifted. A potential move by Kiriyenko to Moscow City Hall, followed eventually by his appointment as mayor, would create a political figure with substantial resources at his disposal. Meanwhile, Yarin's rise and the growing influence of the security agencies over domestic politics would strengthen the role of repressive and control mechanisms in the management of Russia's regions and political parties. For now, Kiriyenko's absence from the September meeting and the Kynev arrest appear to be more indicators of possible tensions within the Presidential Administration than evidence that Kiriyenko is on the verge of leaving his post. But in a system where official statements rarely reflect the actual distribution of power, such signals are precisely what make it possible to track the shifting tectonic plates beneath the surface of Russian politics. Ignoring them means viewing the Russian government as a static entity rather than as a living, conflict-ridden structure in a constant state of realignment.
* * *
Alex Horobets is a PhD candidate at the Institute of History of Ukraine National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, within the Department of International Relations and Foreign Policy of Ukraine. His main research topics include international politics and military activity in the Arctic.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/post-election-speculation-mounted-about-kiriyenkos-kremlin-position/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Goldwater 2026 Freedom Gala: Freedom's Next 250 Years
PHOENIX, Arizona, Oct. 23 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Goldwater Institute posted the following news:
* * *
Goldwater 2026 Freedom Gala: Freedom's Next 250 Years
*
For 250 years, the United States has been a beacon of freedom and liberty for the world. This year, the Goldwater Institute commemorated that national milestone while successfully fighting for those same critical principles in courts and statehouses around the country.
On Friday, champions of liberty from every corner of the nation descended on the Arizona Biltmore in Phoenix for the Goldwater Institute's annual Freedom Gala where ... Show Full Article PHOENIX, Arizona, Oct. 23 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Goldwater Institute posted the following news: * * * Goldwater 2026 Freedom Gala: Freedom's Next 250 Years * For 250 years, the United States has been a beacon of freedom and liberty for the world. This year, the Goldwater Institute commemorated that national milestone while successfully fighting for those same critical principles in courts and statehouses around the country. On Friday, champions of liberty from every corner of the nation descended on the Arizona Biltmore in Phoenix for the Goldwater Institute's annual Freedom Gala wherewe celebrated all the ways we're winning for individual liberty. Over the last year, Goldwater has worked in 43 states and won more than 50 legislative and litigation victories, Goldwater Institute President and CEO Victor Riches told attendees.
"And all of them with one objective in mind: to get the government out of our lives," he said.
This past year, Goldwater and its allies successfully defended the nation's leading school-choice program from a full-scale union assault, fought unconstitutional government business mandates and taxpayer-funded giveaways, and exposed universities for continuing to push their activist agendas on students and staff. We defeated Arizona's illegal water restrictions that halted housing construction in Phoenix. We stood up for a Missouri grandma's right to have her neighbors over for breakfast without the government's permission. And we advocated in the nation's capital for the right of rare-disease patients to cut through government red tape to try potentially life-save treatments.
Of course, those are just a handful of examples of how Goldwater has advanced freedom for Americans from coast to coast. And while it's important to reflect on recent victories, Friday's gala was also about looking boldly to the future to ensure that American freedom and liberty endure for another 250 years.
"Any time the government at any level--whether it's the executive branch or a school board--tries to trample on the rights of individuals and businesses, we will be there to stop it," Riches said. "There is no greater cause than defending liberty, and that's what the Goldwater Institute does best."
Goldwater's success is not just driven by the institute's generous donors and talented staff--we also rely on the unwavering courage of everyday Americans who are willing to fight alongside us to safeguard freedom. Jenny Clark, an Arizona mom and school-choice champion, is one of those courageous Americans. That's why Jenny is Goldwater's 2026 Freedom Award winner.
"To me, this award represents a truth far greater than any single individual," Jenny said. "It points to the defining principle of the American experiment: that freedom is not a privilege rationed out by the government. Freedom is an inherent, God-given unalienable right belonging to ever American."
Jenny first joined the fight for education freedom in 2018 after her oldest son was evaluated for dyslexia and she learned her local school district had no special programming for him. That's when she found out about Arizona's Empowerment Scholarship Accounts school-choice program, a Goldwater innovation which provides parents with state funding to customize their kids' education. At the time, the ESA program was only available to select students, including those with special needs.
"I thought, this program is so amazing, it's so incredible. More families need to have access to an ESA," she said.
With her young kids in tow, Jenny became involved in the fight for Proposition 305, Arizona's first attempt to make the ESA program universal. The 2018 measure didn't pass, but Jenny used the momentum she'd built to launch Love Your School, a nonprofit that informs parents about their education options and promotes education freedom in Arizona and around the country. In 2022, with Jenny's help, Arizona became the first state in the nation to expand its ESA program to every student. Jenny is a special kind of leader who took Goldwater's innovation and turned it into a grassroot movement to uplift countless kids.
Jenny's leadership in the education-freedom world was vital this year when teachers' unions in Arizona and Washington D.C., teamed up to put a disingenuous measure on November's ballot aimed at gutting the ESA program to sending tens of thousands of Arizona children back to failing government schools. The unions spent more than $7 million to gather signatures to qualify for the ballot--they even enlisted dangerous felons to do it, a clear violation of state law.
Jenny was a leader in the Decline to Sign campaign, informing voters about how the union measure would hurt Arizona kids. She was also the lead plaintiff in the Goldwater Institute's successful signature challenge, which ultimately disqualified the union measure from the ballot.
"Through her unyielding tenacity, Jenny has proven that no array of entrenched interests can match a mother's grit," said Goldwater Institute Executive Vice President Christina Sandefur. "Jenny embodies the true spirit of the Freedom Award because she remains, at her core, a relentless force fighting for kids."
And the fight must go on--the fight for school choice and the fight for freedom generally--because the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, said Jon Riches, Goldwater's Vice President for Litigation.
"At the Goldwater Institute, we will use every tool at our disposal--in legislatures, in courtrooms, and in the court of public opinion--to stand with the individual against the state," he said. "We fight for the right to speak freely, to earn an honest living, to own and use property, to direct our children's education. And ultimately, for the most fundamental freedom of all: the right to live our own lives, according to our own judgment, free from government interference."
Actor, comedian and New York Times best-selling author Adam Carolla closed the evening with an impassioned defense of American ideals and a humorous takedown of progressive insanity.
A key lesson of history is that freedom and liberty are essential ingredients for human flourishing. And yet, threats to these key principles never end--overreaching governments and bureaucratic busybodies will always seek new ways to squelch freedom and empower themselves. That's why the Goldwater Institute will never cease in its mission to ensure that American liberty endures for generations to come.
Since 1988, the Goldwater Institute has been in the liberty business -- defending and promoting freedom, and achieving more than 400 victories in all 50 states. Donate today to help support our mission.
We Protect Your Rights
Our attorneys defend individual rights and protect those who cannot protect themselves.
Sign up for the latest news, event updates, and more.
Wait! Don't close this yet!
We are grateful for your support of the Goldwater Institute's efforts to advance and defend liberty throughout the United States. For over 36 years, we've been defending the rights of Americans to live their lives free from government interference.
And Goldwater is unique in that we direct our efforts to the 50 states where we introduce and advance innovative ideas that expand freedom. And we fight in courtrooms and capitals nationwide to defend individual liberty.
In 2024 alone, we scored over 50 policy and litigation victories defending liberty!
And that's just the beginning.
Our plans for 2025 include:
Stopping pernicious DEI and other woke programs in America's universities.
Ensuring that patients suffering from rare and terminal diseases have access to cutting-edge, lifesaving medical treatments, without having to first seek permission from the government.
Defending parental rights across the United States so that parents can send their kids to the school that best fits their needs, free from leftist indoctrination.
Eliminating government interference in the fundamental right of individuals to own property and use it as they see fit.
And much, much more
We seek to restore the presumption of liberty; that people are free to act without first asking permission from the government.
But we cannot do this without you. Will you join us as we fight to preserve and advance liberty throughout the country? As we seek new and innovative ways to defend freedom in all 50 states?
And there's great news: Thanks to a generous Goldwater supporter, your donation today will be doubled!
So please, join us in fighting to advance liberty and score real wins for freedom from coast to coast!
***
Original text here: https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/goldwater-2026-freedom-gala-freedoms-next-250-years/
* * *
Goldwater 2026 Freedom Gala: Freedom's Next 250 Years
*
For 250 years, the United States has been a beacon of freedom and liberty for the world. This year, the Goldwater Institute commemorated that national milestone while successfully fighting for those same critical principles in courts and statehouses around the country.
On Friday, champions of liberty from every corner of the nation descended on the Arizona Biltmore in Phoenix for the Goldwater Institute's annual Freedom Gala where ... Show Full Article PHOENIX, Arizona, Oct. 23 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Goldwater Institute posted the following news: * * * Goldwater 2026 Freedom Gala: Freedom's Next 250 Years * For 250 years, the United States has been a beacon of freedom and liberty for the world. This year, the Goldwater Institute commemorated that national milestone while successfully fighting for those same critical principles in courts and statehouses around the country. On Friday, champions of liberty from every corner of the nation descended on the Arizona Biltmore in Phoenix for the Goldwater Institute's annual Freedom Gala wherewe celebrated all the ways we're winning for individual liberty. Over the last year, Goldwater has worked in 43 states and won more than 50 legislative and litigation victories, Goldwater Institute President and CEO Victor Riches told attendees.
"And all of them with one objective in mind: to get the government out of our lives," he said.
This past year, Goldwater and its allies successfully defended the nation's leading school-choice program from a full-scale union assault, fought unconstitutional government business mandates and taxpayer-funded giveaways, and exposed universities for continuing to push their activist agendas on students and staff. We defeated Arizona's illegal water restrictions that halted housing construction in Phoenix. We stood up for a Missouri grandma's right to have her neighbors over for breakfast without the government's permission. And we advocated in the nation's capital for the right of rare-disease patients to cut through government red tape to try potentially life-save treatments.
Of course, those are just a handful of examples of how Goldwater has advanced freedom for Americans from coast to coast. And while it's important to reflect on recent victories, Friday's gala was also about looking boldly to the future to ensure that American freedom and liberty endure for another 250 years.
"Any time the government at any level--whether it's the executive branch or a school board--tries to trample on the rights of individuals and businesses, we will be there to stop it," Riches said. "There is no greater cause than defending liberty, and that's what the Goldwater Institute does best."
Goldwater's success is not just driven by the institute's generous donors and talented staff--we also rely on the unwavering courage of everyday Americans who are willing to fight alongside us to safeguard freedom. Jenny Clark, an Arizona mom and school-choice champion, is one of those courageous Americans. That's why Jenny is Goldwater's 2026 Freedom Award winner.
"To me, this award represents a truth far greater than any single individual," Jenny said. "It points to the defining principle of the American experiment: that freedom is not a privilege rationed out by the government. Freedom is an inherent, God-given unalienable right belonging to ever American."
Jenny first joined the fight for education freedom in 2018 after her oldest son was evaluated for dyslexia and she learned her local school district had no special programming for him. That's when she found out about Arizona's Empowerment Scholarship Accounts school-choice program, a Goldwater innovation which provides parents with state funding to customize their kids' education. At the time, the ESA program was only available to select students, including those with special needs.
"I thought, this program is so amazing, it's so incredible. More families need to have access to an ESA," she said.
With her young kids in tow, Jenny became involved in the fight for Proposition 305, Arizona's first attempt to make the ESA program universal. The 2018 measure didn't pass, but Jenny used the momentum she'd built to launch Love Your School, a nonprofit that informs parents about their education options and promotes education freedom in Arizona and around the country. In 2022, with Jenny's help, Arizona became the first state in the nation to expand its ESA program to every student. Jenny is a special kind of leader who took Goldwater's innovation and turned it into a grassroot movement to uplift countless kids.
Jenny's leadership in the education-freedom world was vital this year when teachers' unions in Arizona and Washington D.C., teamed up to put a disingenuous measure on November's ballot aimed at gutting the ESA program to sending tens of thousands of Arizona children back to failing government schools. The unions spent more than $7 million to gather signatures to qualify for the ballot--they even enlisted dangerous felons to do it, a clear violation of state law.
Jenny was a leader in the Decline to Sign campaign, informing voters about how the union measure would hurt Arizona kids. She was also the lead plaintiff in the Goldwater Institute's successful signature challenge, which ultimately disqualified the union measure from the ballot.
"Through her unyielding tenacity, Jenny has proven that no array of entrenched interests can match a mother's grit," said Goldwater Institute Executive Vice President Christina Sandefur. "Jenny embodies the true spirit of the Freedom Award because she remains, at her core, a relentless force fighting for kids."
And the fight must go on--the fight for school choice and the fight for freedom generally--because the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, said Jon Riches, Goldwater's Vice President for Litigation.
"At the Goldwater Institute, we will use every tool at our disposal--in legislatures, in courtrooms, and in the court of public opinion--to stand with the individual against the state," he said. "We fight for the right to speak freely, to earn an honest living, to own and use property, to direct our children's education. And ultimately, for the most fundamental freedom of all: the right to live our own lives, according to our own judgment, free from government interference."
Actor, comedian and New York Times best-selling author Adam Carolla closed the evening with an impassioned defense of American ideals and a humorous takedown of progressive insanity.
A key lesson of history is that freedom and liberty are essential ingredients for human flourishing. And yet, threats to these key principles never end--overreaching governments and bureaucratic busybodies will always seek new ways to squelch freedom and empower themselves. That's why the Goldwater Institute will never cease in its mission to ensure that American liberty endures for generations to come.
Since 1988, the Goldwater Institute has been in the liberty business -- defending and promoting freedom, and achieving more than 400 victories in all 50 states. Donate today to help support our mission.
We Protect Your Rights
Our attorneys defend individual rights and protect those who cannot protect themselves.
Sign up for the latest news, event updates, and more.
Wait! Don't close this yet!
We are grateful for your support of the Goldwater Institute's efforts to advance and defend liberty throughout the United States. For over 36 years, we've been defending the rights of Americans to live their lives free from government interference.
And Goldwater is unique in that we direct our efforts to the 50 states where we introduce and advance innovative ideas that expand freedom. And we fight in courtrooms and capitals nationwide to defend individual liberty.
In 2024 alone, we scored over 50 policy and litigation victories defending liberty!
And that's just the beginning.
Our plans for 2025 include:
Stopping pernicious DEI and other woke programs in America's universities.
Ensuring that patients suffering from rare and terminal diseases have access to cutting-edge, lifesaving medical treatments, without having to first seek permission from the government.
Defending parental rights across the United States so that parents can send their kids to the school that best fits their needs, free from leftist indoctrination.
Eliminating government interference in the fundamental right of individuals to own property and use it as they see fit.
And much, much more
We seek to restore the presumption of liberty; that people are free to act without first asking permission from the government.
But we cannot do this without you. Will you join us as we fight to preserve and advance liberty throughout the country? As we seek new and innovative ways to defend freedom in all 50 states?
And there's great news: Thanks to a generous Goldwater supporter, your donation today will be doubled!
So please, join us in fighting to advance liberty and score real wins for freedom from coast to coast!
***
Original text here: https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/goldwater-2026-freedom-gala-freedoms-next-250-years/
Center on Budget & Policy Priorities: Economy - Is It Bad? Well, It's Not Good
WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 -- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued the following report:
* * *
The Economy: Is It Bad? Well, It's Not Good
October 22, 2026 | Gbenga Ajilore
People in the U.S. are not feeling good about the economy. Public sentiment about the economy reached historic lows in the first half of 2026, falling to levels typically seen during recessions. This was true whether consumers, businesses, or farmers were surveyed. While the economy may not be as bad as these surveys suggest, several key economic indicators did weaken in 2026, a trend that started in 2025.[1]
Two ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 -- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued the following report: * * * The Economy: Is It Bad? Well, It's Not Good October 22, 2026 | Gbenga Ajilore People in the U.S. are not feeling good about the economy. Public sentiment about the economy reached historic lows in the first half of 2026, falling to levels typically seen during recessions. This was true whether consumers, businesses, or farmers were surveyed. While the economy may not be as bad as these surveys suggest, several key economic indicators did weaken in 2026, a trend that started in 2025.[1] Twomajor factors have contributed to the softness in the overall economy during the first half of 2026: the Trump Administration's chaotic and harmful tariff policy and its war in Iran, which led to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the destruction of energy infrastructure in the region, and high oil prices that are rippling through the economy.
The economy was in relatively good shape at the end of 2024, at least according to standard macroeconomic indicators. Economic growth and unemployment in 2024 were basically on par with pre-pandemic years, albeit with elevated inflation.[2]
Since then, the economic growth rate has fallen and inflation has risen. (See Figure 1.) Unemployment has remained relatively stable, but workers are facing a low-hire labor market, and wage growth has dropped below inflation. Warning signs are also coming from the bond market where interest rates are rising, resulting in higher borrowing costs for businesses, consumers, and the federal government.
[View table in the link at bottom.]
Moderate Economic Growth
The real GDP growth rate was propped up in the first half of 2026 by consumer spending and massive business investment in artificial intelligence (AI), which masked some worrisome trends. The slight uptick in GDP in the first half of 2026 may also reflect the rebound in spending from the resumption of government activity after a shutdown ended in late 2025. The shutdown had dragged down GDP growth at the end of 2025, with some estimating it reduced growth by 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points.[3]
Consumer spending represents two-thirds of GDP and is a key driver of GDP growth. Consumer spending growth was small in the first quarter of 2026, contributing only 0.5 percentage points to GDP growth, but it rebounded in the second quarter, contributing 2.5 percentage points to GDP growth. However, this spending was driven not by rising incomes, but rather by declining savings. The consumer savings rate fell from 5.6 percent in January 2026 to 4.1 percent in September 2026, indicating that facing higher prices, households are lowering savings to keep up their consumption. This trend is likely not sustainable; at some point if the trend continues, consumer spending will slow.
Business investment spending was strong in the first half of 2026, supporting GDP growth. Much of this is related to spending on AI, even though a large share of AI investment includes purchases of parts and equipment from overseas, which mutes the impact of this investment on domestic economic growth.[4]
Rising Inflation
The rise in prices in the first half of 2026 has been driven by the Administration's chaotic and haphazard tariff regime and the conflict in the Middle East.
The tariffs caused prices to rise not just for consumers but for businesses of all sizes. The on-again, off-again nature of the tariff regime also led to uncertainty in the economy. While the volatility slowed after the Supreme Court struck down the International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs in February 2026, the Administration continued imposing tariffs through other authorities, keeping prices high.
Consumers have seen higher prices as a result of the tariffs. (See Figure 2.) Economists have estimated that tariffs added nearly two-thirds of a percentage point to the inflation rate.[5] While some businesses did not initially pass on the higher cost of inputs to consumers, it has become more difficult for businesses to absorb those costs over time.
[View table in the link at bottom.]
Tariffs continue to squeeze small businesses, since they have limited ability to shift supply chain strategies to avoid tariffs. Small businesses also lack the resources to navigate the complexity of the Administration's tariff regime and therefore experience higher costs that put them at greater risk of bankruptcy.[6]
At the end of February 2026, the Administration started a war in Iran, which led to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. This conflict expanded throughout the region, leading to the destruction of energy infrastructure. Since a large share of the world's oil flows through the region, prices of gas, diesel, and fertilizer have spiked, disrupting the global economy. In the U.S.:
* Gas prices jumped from an average of $3 per gallon in February 2026, prior to the war, to over $4 per gallon as of October 2026.
* Diesel prices have reached record highs of over $6 per gallon, as of October 2026.[7] Since most goods are transported by truck, rail, or ship, rising diesel prices increase the cost of moving freight, which is typically passed on to consumers as higher prices on goods, including groceries. A 2013 study found that trucks ship 83 percent of agricultural products and 92 percent of dairy, fruit, vegetables, and nuts.[8]
* Fertilizer prices spiked earlier in the year by 30 percent, putting a financial strain on farmers who were already struggling with the effects of tariffs on steel, aluminum, and even fertilizer itself.
Low-Hire Labor Market
While the unemployment rate has remained relatively low, at around 4 percent, the labor market has not been good for workers. It has been characterized by low hiring and slowing wage growth.
[View table in the link at bottom.]
Wage growth occurs when workers have options to leave their jobs. If hiring is low, that pathway to higher wages disappears.[9] In 2026, hiring has been low, as evidenced by Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) data[10], and average wage growth has slowed and has not kept up with rising inflation. (See Figure 3.) Moreover, since April 2026, average wage growth has fallen below the inflation rate. When wage growth is not keeping pace with rising prices, people, particularly those with low or middle incomes, are less able to afford the goods and services they are used to purchasing and must find ways to stretch their dollars even further.
The labor force participation rate, which is the share of the population that is employed or actively looking for work, has fallen by nearly a full percentage point since the beginning of 2026. But the decline in the rate largely reflects a longer-term trend resulting from an aging population rather than something specific to 2026. As people age, they are more likely to leave the workforce. In contrast, prime-age labor force participation (those ages 25-54) has been fairly steady and at historically high levels, averaging 83.5 percent over the past year and a half. This is one of the strong points of today's economy, but the labor market is not strong enough currently to result in wage growth.
Warning Signs From the Bond Market
Other measures beyond the standard macroeconomic indicators of growth, inflation, and unemployment suggest headwinds for the economy. A notable example is the interest rate on Treasury bonds. The yield on a 10-year Treasury first rose to 5 percent on September 16, 2026, which is its highest level since 2007, right before the Great Recession. This is particularly concerning because many interest rates that affect consumers and businesses are based on the 10-year Treasury. For example, the 30-year mortgage rate follows the 10-year Treasury, and mortgage rates are now over 7 percent, having fallen below 6 percent at the end of February 2026.
There are several major drivers of higher interest rates including rising inflation; the nation's large federal debt; and corporate bond issuance, including by AI-related companies. Inflation is rising from the conflict in the Middle East, which has caused rising energy prices. With higher inflation, bond holders need a higher rate on the bond to make purchasing it worthwhile.
The persistently high annual deficit, which is estimated to have hit 6 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2026, has driven higher interest rates. In fact, the 2021-2025 non-interest deficits were the highest since World War II (measured as a percent of GDP) excluding those years when the unemployment rate exceeded 7 percent, when we expect deficits to rise in response to recession. To finance our growing debt, which is now roughly equal to the size of the economy, the federal government must issue more bonds. To a lesser extent, rising corporate bond issuance has impacted bond yields. These bonds have been competing with government bonds, and to get investors to purchase them, government bond yields have needed to rise.
The Bottom Line
The economy is not in recession -- unemployment remains relatively low and there continues to be real GDP growth. But there is a reason polls find that people in the U.S. are negative on the economy - wages aren't keeping up with inflation, workers correctly perceive that there are few new or alternative job opportunities for them in this low-hire labor market, and inflation and interest rates are making purchases and borrowing more expensive. These issues don't stem from natural disasters or even the business cycle. The Trump Administration's policies -- tariffs, the war in the Middle East, and deficit-increasing tax cuts -- are harming the economy by limiting economic growth, increasing inflation, weakening the labor market, and pushing up interest rates.
* * *
End Notes
[1] Gbenga Ajilore, "A Weakening Economy, and a Drastically Cut Economic Support System," CBPP, November 5, 2025, https://www.cbpp.org/blog/a-weakening-economy-and-a-drastically-cut-economic-support-system.
[2] Ajilore, op. cit.
[3] Congressional Research Service, "The 2025 (FY2026) Government Shutdown: Economic Effects," January 29, 2026, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48832.
[4] Michael Waugh, "Trade in AI-Related Products," National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 35053, April 2026, https://www.nber.org/papers/w35053.
[5] Maximiliano A. Dvorkin et al., "Tariff Effects on Inflation Stabilize in Recent Months," Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, August 18, 2026, https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2026/aug/tariff-effects-inflation-stabilize-recent-months.
[6] Scott Lincicome, "Small Businesses Despise Trump's Tariffs - For Good Reason," Bloomberg, August 14, 2026, https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2026-08-14/trump-s-tariffs-are-an-existential-threat-to-small-businesses.
[7] Mark Niquette and Steven T. Dennis, "Record Diesel Prices Hit at Worst Time in Key Battleground States," Bloomberg, September 16, 2026, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2026-09-16/midterm-elections-rising-us-diesel-heating-oil-prices-hit-voters-in-key-states.
[8] Richard Volpe, Edward Roeger, and Ephraim Leibtag, "How Transportation Costs Affect Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Prices," Economic Research Service, November 2013, https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/45168.
[9] Erik Hurst et al., "Sticky Wage Norms and the Real Wage Cost of Unexpected Inflation," National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 35624, August 2026, https://www.nber.org/papers/w35624.
[10] Stephanie Hughes, "The Latest JOLTS Survey Shows More of the Same Low-Hire, Low-Fire Economy," Marketplace, September 29, 2026, https://www.marketplace.org/story/2026/09/29/low-hire-low-fire-economy-marches-on-latest-jolts-data-shows.
* * *
Gbenga Ajilore is the Center's Chief Economist. He most recently served as a senior advisor in the Office of the Undersecretary for Rural Development at the United States Department of Agriculture.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cbpp.org/research/economy/the-economy-is-it-bad-well-its-not-good
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
The Economy: Is It Bad? Well, It's Not Good
October 22, 2026 | Gbenga Ajilore
People in the U.S. are not feeling good about the economy. Public sentiment about the economy reached historic lows in the first half of 2026, falling to levels typically seen during recessions. This was true whether consumers, businesses, or farmers were surveyed. While the economy may not be as bad as these surveys suggest, several key economic indicators did weaken in 2026, a trend that started in 2025.[1]
Two ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 -- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued the following report: * * * The Economy: Is It Bad? Well, It's Not Good October 22, 2026 | Gbenga Ajilore People in the U.S. are not feeling good about the economy. Public sentiment about the economy reached historic lows in the first half of 2026, falling to levels typically seen during recessions. This was true whether consumers, businesses, or farmers were surveyed. While the economy may not be as bad as these surveys suggest, several key economic indicators did weaken in 2026, a trend that started in 2025.[1] Twomajor factors have contributed to the softness in the overall economy during the first half of 2026: the Trump Administration's chaotic and harmful tariff policy and its war in Iran, which led to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the destruction of energy infrastructure in the region, and high oil prices that are rippling through the economy.
The economy was in relatively good shape at the end of 2024, at least according to standard macroeconomic indicators. Economic growth and unemployment in 2024 were basically on par with pre-pandemic years, albeit with elevated inflation.[2]
Since then, the economic growth rate has fallen and inflation has risen. (See Figure 1.) Unemployment has remained relatively stable, but workers are facing a low-hire labor market, and wage growth has dropped below inflation. Warning signs are also coming from the bond market where interest rates are rising, resulting in higher borrowing costs for businesses, consumers, and the federal government.
[View table in the link at bottom.]
Moderate Economic Growth
The real GDP growth rate was propped up in the first half of 2026 by consumer spending and massive business investment in artificial intelligence (AI), which masked some worrisome trends. The slight uptick in GDP in the first half of 2026 may also reflect the rebound in spending from the resumption of government activity after a shutdown ended in late 2025. The shutdown had dragged down GDP growth at the end of 2025, with some estimating it reduced growth by 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points.[3]
Consumer spending represents two-thirds of GDP and is a key driver of GDP growth. Consumer spending growth was small in the first quarter of 2026, contributing only 0.5 percentage points to GDP growth, but it rebounded in the second quarter, contributing 2.5 percentage points to GDP growth. However, this spending was driven not by rising incomes, but rather by declining savings. The consumer savings rate fell from 5.6 percent in January 2026 to 4.1 percent in September 2026, indicating that facing higher prices, households are lowering savings to keep up their consumption. This trend is likely not sustainable; at some point if the trend continues, consumer spending will slow.
Business investment spending was strong in the first half of 2026, supporting GDP growth. Much of this is related to spending on AI, even though a large share of AI investment includes purchases of parts and equipment from overseas, which mutes the impact of this investment on domestic economic growth.[4]
Rising Inflation
The rise in prices in the first half of 2026 has been driven by the Administration's chaotic and haphazard tariff regime and the conflict in the Middle East.
The tariffs caused prices to rise not just for consumers but for businesses of all sizes. The on-again, off-again nature of the tariff regime also led to uncertainty in the economy. While the volatility slowed after the Supreme Court struck down the International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs in February 2026, the Administration continued imposing tariffs through other authorities, keeping prices high.
Consumers have seen higher prices as a result of the tariffs. (See Figure 2.) Economists have estimated that tariffs added nearly two-thirds of a percentage point to the inflation rate.[5] While some businesses did not initially pass on the higher cost of inputs to consumers, it has become more difficult for businesses to absorb those costs over time.
[View table in the link at bottom.]
Tariffs continue to squeeze small businesses, since they have limited ability to shift supply chain strategies to avoid tariffs. Small businesses also lack the resources to navigate the complexity of the Administration's tariff regime and therefore experience higher costs that put them at greater risk of bankruptcy.[6]
At the end of February 2026, the Administration started a war in Iran, which led to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. This conflict expanded throughout the region, leading to the destruction of energy infrastructure. Since a large share of the world's oil flows through the region, prices of gas, diesel, and fertilizer have spiked, disrupting the global economy. In the U.S.:
* Gas prices jumped from an average of $3 per gallon in February 2026, prior to the war, to over $4 per gallon as of October 2026.
* Diesel prices have reached record highs of over $6 per gallon, as of October 2026.[7] Since most goods are transported by truck, rail, or ship, rising diesel prices increase the cost of moving freight, which is typically passed on to consumers as higher prices on goods, including groceries. A 2013 study found that trucks ship 83 percent of agricultural products and 92 percent of dairy, fruit, vegetables, and nuts.[8]
* Fertilizer prices spiked earlier in the year by 30 percent, putting a financial strain on farmers who were already struggling with the effects of tariffs on steel, aluminum, and even fertilizer itself.
Low-Hire Labor Market
While the unemployment rate has remained relatively low, at around 4 percent, the labor market has not been good for workers. It has been characterized by low hiring and slowing wage growth.
[View table in the link at bottom.]
Wage growth occurs when workers have options to leave their jobs. If hiring is low, that pathway to higher wages disappears.[9] In 2026, hiring has been low, as evidenced by Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) data[10], and average wage growth has slowed and has not kept up with rising inflation. (See Figure 3.) Moreover, since April 2026, average wage growth has fallen below the inflation rate. When wage growth is not keeping pace with rising prices, people, particularly those with low or middle incomes, are less able to afford the goods and services they are used to purchasing and must find ways to stretch their dollars even further.
The labor force participation rate, which is the share of the population that is employed or actively looking for work, has fallen by nearly a full percentage point since the beginning of 2026. But the decline in the rate largely reflects a longer-term trend resulting from an aging population rather than something specific to 2026. As people age, they are more likely to leave the workforce. In contrast, prime-age labor force participation (those ages 25-54) has been fairly steady and at historically high levels, averaging 83.5 percent over the past year and a half. This is one of the strong points of today's economy, but the labor market is not strong enough currently to result in wage growth.
Warning Signs From the Bond Market
Other measures beyond the standard macroeconomic indicators of growth, inflation, and unemployment suggest headwinds for the economy. A notable example is the interest rate on Treasury bonds. The yield on a 10-year Treasury first rose to 5 percent on September 16, 2026, which is its highest level since 2007, right before the Great Recession. This is particularly concerning because many interest rates that affect consumers and businesses are based on the 10-year Treasury. For example, the 30-year mortgage rate follows the 10-year Treasury, and mortgage rates are now over 7 percent, having fallen below 6 percent at the end of February 2026.
There are several major drivers of higher interest rates including rising inflation; the nation's large federal debt; and corporate bond issuance, including by AI-related companies. Inflation is rising from the conflict in the Middle East, which has caused rising energy prices. With higher inflation, bond holders need a higher rate on the bond to make purchasing it worthwhile.
The persistently high annual deficit, which is estimated to have hit 6 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2026, has driven higher interest rates. In fact, the 2021-2025 non-interest deficits were the highest since World War II (measured as a percent of GDP) excluding those years when the unemployment rate exceeded 7 percent, when we expect deficits to rise in response to recession. To finance our growing debt, which is now roughly equal to the size of the economy, the federal government must issue more bonds. To a lesser extent, rising corporate bond issuance has impacted bond yields. These bonds have been competing with government bonds, and to get investors to purchase them, government bond yields have needed to rise.
The Bottom Line
The economy is not in recession -- unemployment remains relatively low and there continues to be real GDP growth. But there is a reason polls find that people in the U.S. are negative on the economy - wages aren't keeping up with inflation, workers correctly perceive that there are few new or alternative job opportunities for them in this low-hire labor market, and inflation and interest rates are making purchases and borrowing more expensive. These issues don't stem from natural disasters or even the business cycle. The Trump Administration's policies -- tariffs, the war in the Middle East, and deficit-increasing tax cuts -- are harming the economy by limiting economic growth, increasing inflation, weakening the labor market, and pushing up interest rates.
* * *
End Notes
[1] Gbenga Ajilore, "A Weakening Economy, and a Drastically Cut Economic Support System," CBPP, November 5, 2025, https://www.cbpp.org/blog/a-weakening-economy-and-a-drastically-cut-economic-support-system.
[2] Ajilore, op. cit.
[3] Congressional Research Service, "The 2025 (FY2026) Government Shutdown: Economic Effects," January 29, 2026, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48832.
[4] Michael Waugh, "Trade in AI-Related Products," National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 35053, April 2026, https://www.nber.org/papers/w35053.
[5] Maximiliano A. Dvorkin et al., "Tariff Effects on Inflation Stabilize in Recent Months," Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, August 18, 2026, https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2026/aug/tariff-effects-inflation-stabilize-recent-months.
[6] Scott Lincicome, "Small Businesses Despise Trump's Tariffs - For Good Reason," Bloomberg, August 14, 2026, https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2026-08-14/trump-s-tariffs-are-an-existential-threat-to-small-businesses.
[7] Mark Niquette and Steven T. Dennis, "Record Diesel Prices Hit at Worst Time in Key Battleground States," Bloomberg, September 16, 2026, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2026-09-16/midterm-elections-rising-us-diesel-heating-oil-prices-hit-voters-in-key-states.
[8] Richard Volpe, Edward Roeger, and Ephraim Leibtag, "How Transportation Costs Affect Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Prices," Economic Research Service, November 2013, https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/45168.
[9] Erik Hurst et al., "Sticky Wage Norms and the Real Wage Cost of Unexpected Inflation," National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 35624, August 2026, https://www.nber.org/papers/w35624.
[10] Stephanie Hughes, "The Latest JOLTS Survey Shows More of the Same Low-Hire, Low-Fire Economy," Marketplace, September 29, 2026, https://www.marketplace.org/story/2026/09/29/low-hire-low-fire-economy-marches-on-latest-jolts-data-shows.
* * *
Gbenga Ajilore is the Center's Chief Economist. He most recently served as a senior advisor in the Office of the Undersecretary for Rural Development at the United States Department of Agriculture.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cbpp.org/research/economy/the-economy-is-it-bad-well-its-not-good
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center for American Progress: New Analysis Finds Trump Administration Has Devoted at Least $1.6 Billion in Taxpayer Dollars to Vanity Projects
WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 (TNSbrep) -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release:
* * *
Oct 23, 2026
New Analysis Finds Trump Administration Has Devoted at Least $1.6 Billion in Taxpayer Dollars to Vanity Projects
Washington, D.C. -- A new analysis from the Center for American Progress finds that the Trump administration has spent or plans to spend at least $1.6 billion in exclusively taxpayer dollars on vanity projects, including some that promote the president's image and personal brand. CAP details alternatives that $1.6 billion could be used for to help families afford ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 (TNSbrep) -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release: * * * Oct 23, 2026 New Analysis Finds Trump Administration Has Devoted at Least $1.6 Billion in Taxpayer Dollars to Vanity Projects Washington, D.C. -- A new analysis from the Center for American Progress finds that the Trump administration has spent or plans to spend at least $1.6 billion in exclusively taxpayer dollars on vanity projects, including some that promote the president's image and personal brand. CAP details alternatives that $1.6 billion could be used for to help families affordbasic necessities nationally and in all 50 states.
Taxpayer dollars have been directed toward projects including the refurbishment of a Qatari luxury jet, a new White House ballroom, a monument to the president, self-promotional television advertisements, and massive banners featuring the president's face on federal buildings. Recent polling found 65 percent of Americans are either "dissatisfied" or "upset" about the Trump administration's vanity projects. Meanwhile, Americans continue to struggle to afford health care, housing, and basic necessities.
"The Trump administration is spending over a billion of taxpayer dollars to promote Trump and fund his pet projects," said Hannah McKiernan, CAP research analyst and co-author of the report. "Meanwhile, Americans continue to struggle with rising child care, housing, and food costs. $1.6 billion could go a long way to alleviate those pressures."
The administration's $1.6 billion in spending for vanity projects could have instead:
* Provided school breakfasts and lunches for students in every state. CAP calculates $1.6 billion could provide every student in Alaska free breakfast and lunch for nearly six years. It could provide free meals for Maine students for more than seven years and free meals for students in Nevada for more than two years.
* Offset state costs from SNAP cuts. CAP finds the Trump administration's vanity project spending could offset SNAP cuts from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that shifted to states. Specifically, $1.6 billion could offset the SNAP shortfall in Georgia for nearly three years, Michigan for four years, or Nebraska for 127 years.
* Provided health insurance coverage for uninsured Americans. CAP finds that the Trump administration's vanity project spending could provide Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace coverage for uninsured residents in Minnesota for nearly a year, Idaho for 1.5 years, or Montana for two years.
* Restored ACA premium assistance across the country. CAP analysis finds the $1.6 billion in vanity project spending could provide enhanced premium tax credit support to residents in Massachusetts for nearly 11 years, Illinois for more than three years, or Louisiana for more than two years.
* Funded more than six years of school meal debt nationwide. Public school meal debt totals approximately $271.6 million each year, meaning the administration's vanity project spending could have covered that debt for more than six years.
* Provided more than seven times the disaster relief denied to four states. In July 2026, the Trump administration denied $227 million in federal disaster assistance to four Democratic-led states. The money devoted to vanity projects could have covered those requests more than seven times.
Read the full report: "The Trump Administration Has Devoted at Least $1.6 Billion in Taxpayer Dollars to Vanity Projects" (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-trump-administration-has-devoted-at-least-1-6-billion-in-taxpayer-dollars-to-vanity-projects/) by Hannah McKiernan and Will Ragland.
For more information or to speak with a CAP expert, please contact Christian Unkenholz at cunkenholz@americanprogress.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release-new-analysis-finds-trump-administration-has-devoted-at-least-1-6-billion-in-taxpayer-dollars-to-vanity-projects/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Oct 23, 2026
New Analysis Finds Trump Administration Has Devoted at Least $1.6 Billion in Taxpayer Dollars to Vanity Projects
Washington, D.C. -- A new analysis from the Center for American Progress finds that the Trump administration has spent or plans to spend at least $1.6 billion in exclusively taxpayer dollars on vanity projects, including some that promote the president's image and personal brand. CAP details alternatives that $1.6 billion could be used for to help families afford ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 (TNSbrep) -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release: * * * Oct 23, 2026 New Analysis Finds Trump Administration Has Devoted at Least $1.6 Billion in Taxpayer Dollars to Vanity Projects Washington, D.C. -- A new analysis from the Center for American Progress finds that the Trump administration has spent or plans to spend at least $1.6 billion in exclusively taxpayer dollars on vanity projects, including some that promote the president's image and personal brand. CAP details alternatives that $1.6 billion could be used for to help families affordbasic necessities nationally and in all 50 states.
Taxpayer dollars have been directed toward projects including the refurbishment of a Qatari luxury jet, a new White House ballroom, a monument to the president, self-promotional television advertisements, and massive banners featuring the president's face on federal buildings. Recent polling found 65 percent of Americans are either "dissatisfied" or "upset" about the Trump administration's vanity projects. Meanwhile, Americans continue to struggle to afford health care, housing, and basic necessities.
"The Trump administration is spending over a billion of taxpayer dollars to promote Trump and fund his pet projects," said Hannah McKiernan, CAP research analyst and co-author of the report. "Meanwhile, Americans continue to struggle with rising child care, housing, and food costs. $1.6 billion could go a long way to alleviate those pressures."
The administration's $1.6 billion in spending for vanity projects could have instead:
* Provided school breakfasts and lunches for students in every state. CAP calculates $1.6 billion could provide every student in Alaska free breakfast and lunch for nearly six years. It could provide free meals for Maine students for more than seven years and free meals for students in Nevada for more than two years.
* Offset state costs from SNAP cuts. CAP finds the Trump administration's vanity project spending could offset SNAP cuts from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that shifted to states. Specifically, $1.6 billion could offset the SNAP shortfall in Georgia for nearly three years, Michigan for four years, or Nebraska for 127 years.
* Provided health insurance coverage for uninsured Americans. CAP finds that the Trump administration's vanity project spending could provide Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace coverage for uninsured residents in Minnesota for nearly a year, Idaho for 1.5 years, or Montana for two years.
* Restored ACA premium assistance across the country. CAP analysis finds the $1.6 billion in vanity project spending could provide enhanced premium tax credit support to residents in Massachusetts for nearly 11 years, Illinois for more than three years, or Louisiana for more than two years.
* Funded more than six years of school meal debt nationwide. Public school meal debt totals approximately $271.6 million each year, meaning the administration's vanity project spending could have covered that debt for more than six years.
* Provided more than seven times the disaster relief denied to four states. In July 2026, the Trump administration denied $227 million in federal disaster assistance to four Democratic-led states. The money devoted to vanity projects could have covered those requests more than seven times.
Read the full report: "The Trump Administration Has Devoted at Least $1.6 Billion in Taxpayer Dollars to Vanity Projects" (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-trump-administration-has-devoted-at-least-1-6-billion-in-taxpayer-dollars-to-vanity-projects/) by Hannah McKiernan and Will Ragland.
For more information or to speak with a CAP expert, please contact Christian Unkenholz at cunkenholz@americanprogress.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release-new-analysis-finds-trump-administration-has-devoted-at-least-1-6-billion-in-taxpayer-dollars-to-vanity-projects/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Newsletter Entitled 'Risk to Refugee Return'
WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following newsletter:
* * *
Risk to Refugee Return
by Ninar Fawal
October 22, 2026
Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) in Syria Poses Significant Threats to Refugee Return
Estimated UXO per 1000 returnees by governorate
* * *
Map: UXO per 1000 Returnees
* * *
More than 1.7 million Syrian refugees have returned to Syria following the fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime in December 2024, with explosive remnants of war now posing a significant obstacle to safe resettlement. This installment of Charting the Middle East ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following newsletter: * * * Risk to Refugee Return by Ninar Fawal October 22, 2026 Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) in Syria Poses Significant Threats to Refugee Return Estimated UXO per 1000 returnees by governorate * * * Map: UXO per 1000 Returnees * * * More than 1.7 million Syrian refugees have returned to Syria following the fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime in December 2024, with explosive remnants of war now posing a significant obstacle to safe resettlement. This installment of Charting the Middle Easthighlights how the scale of unexploded ordnance (UXO) contamination, relative to returning populations, varies across Syria. These disparities underscore the importance of prioritizing mine clearance and risk awareness efforts in areas of particular concern.
In 2025, Syria was the second-largest recipient of returned refugees worldwide while also reporting the highest number of UXO-related casualties globally. By measuring estimated UXO presence per 1,000 returnees, this analysis identifies a particular challenge in the northeastern governorates of Al-Hasakeh and Ar-Raqqa, which record the highest ratios of refugee return amid UXO presence nationwide.
Both governorates form part of Syria's agricultural breadbasket, where activities such as farming can require turning over soil contaminated with explosive ordnance. The HALO Trust estimates that more than 60 percent of detonation incidents in 2025 have taken place on agricultural or grazing lands, underscoring the particular dangers facing returnees whose livelihoods depend on agriculture.
De-mining activities and awareness-raising initiatives, such as the Syria Mine Action Partner Conference in Geneva held in June 2026, have accelerated in recent months. However, establishing a national baseline of contamination and building trust with affected communities remain significant challenges. As returns continue, considering contamination levels and patterns of refugee return together will be critical to informing mine clearance priorities and supporting safe resettlement.
* * *
Ninar Fawal
Program Manager and Research Associate, Middle East Program
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/risk-refugee-return
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Risk to Refugee Return
by Ninar Fawal
October 22, 2026
Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) in Syria Poses Significant Threats to Refugee Return
Estimated UXO per 1000 returnees by governorate
* * *
Map: UXO per 1000 Returnees
* * *
More than 1.7 million Syrian refugees have returned to Syria following the fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime in December 2024, with explosive remnants of war now posing a significant obstacle to safe resettlement. This installment of Charting the Middle East ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following newsletter: * * * Risk to Refugee Return by Ninar Fawal October 22, 2026 Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) in Syria Poses Significant Threats to Refugee Return Estimated UXO per 1000 returnees by governorate * * * Map: UXO per 1000 Returnees * * * More than 1.7 million Syrian refugees have returned to Syria following the fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime in December 2024, with explosive remnants of war now posing a significant obstacle to safe resettlement. This installment of Charting the Middle Easthighlights how the scale of unexploded ordnance (UXO) contamination, relative to returning populations, varies across Syria. These disparities underscore the importance of prioritizing mine clearance and risk awareness efforts in areas of particular concern.
In 2025, Syria was the second-largest recipient of returned refugees worldwide while also reporting the highest number of UXO-related casualties globally. By measuring estimated UXO presence per 1,000 returnees, this analysis identifies a particular challenge in the northeastern governorates of Al-Hasakeh and Ar-Raqqa, which record the highest ratios of refugee return amid UXO presence nationwide.
Both governorates form part of Syria's agricultural breadbasket, where activities such as farming can require turning over soil contaminated with explosive ordnance. The HALO Trust estimates that more than 60 percent of detonation incidents in 2025 have taken place on agricultural or grazing lands, underscoring the particular dangers facing returnees whose livelihoods depend on agriculture.
De-mining activities and awareness-raising initiatives, such as the Syria Mine Action Partner Conference in Geneva held in June 2026, have accelerated in recent months. However, establishing a national baseline of contamination and building trust with affected communities remain significant challenges. As returns continue, considering contamination levels and patterns of refugee return together will be critical to informing mine clearance priorities and supporting safe resettlement.
* * *
Ninar Fawal
Program Manager and Research Associate, Middle East Program
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/risk-refugee-return
[Category: ThinkTank]
American Action Forum Issues Insight: State AGs Go on Antitrust Offensive
WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 -- The American Action Forum issued the following insight:
* * *
October 22, 2026
State AGs Go on Antitrust Offensive
Fred Ashton
Executive Summary
* Amid increased state-level antitrust enforcement, House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee Chairman Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI) introduced a discussion draft of legislation giving the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice exclusive authority to review or challenge certain mergers and acquisitions of interstate or international interest.
* State attorneys general are increasingly enforcing federal and state antitrust ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 -- The American Action Forum issued the following insight: * * * October 22, 2026 State AGs Go on Antitrust Offensive Fred Ashton Executive Summary * Amid increased state-level antitrust enforcement, House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee Chairman Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI) introduced a discussion draft of legislation giving the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice exclusive authority to review or challenge certain mergers and acquisitions of interstate or international interest. * State attorneys general are increasingly enforcing federal and state antitrustand consumer protection laws independently, while state legislatures are passing policies to fill perceived gaps in federal law.
* The proposed federal preemption legislation aims to balance the complexity of multi-jurisdictional merger investigations with the states' authority to preserve local competition.
-
Introduction
House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee Chairman Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI) introduced a discussion draft of legislation that would grant the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) exclusive authority to review or challenge certain mergers and acquisitions of interstate or international interest. The proposal comes amid a sharp rise in state-level antitrust enforcement.
State attorneys general (AGs) are taking a more active role enforcing federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. State AGs have challenged mergers independent of federal regulators including Paramount's acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery despite the merger being approved by 68 national competition authorities, including the U.S. Department of Justice. At the same time, state legislatures are adopting new policies to fill perceived gaps in federal law, specifically those related to personalized pricing and the use of common pricing algorithms.
The proposed federal preemption legislation aims to balance the complexity of multi-jurisdictional merger investigations with the states' authority to preserve local competition.
The Rise of State Enforcement
State AGs have intensified competition enforcement and merger challenges during the second Trump Administration. Multi-state AG coalitions have taken action to challenge several transactions including Paramount's acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery and Nexstar Media Group's merger with Tegna, and have even intervened in the Tunney Act proceedings that sought to unwind Hewlett Packard Enterprises' approved purchase of Juniper Networks.
Data from the National Association of Attorneys General underscores the uptick in state-level antitrust enforcement.
[View table in the link at bottom.]
The rise in state enforcement stems, in part, from allegations of impropriety at the federal antitrust enforcement agencies involving the merger between American Express Global Business Travel and CWT Holdings, Hewlett Packard Enterprises' acquisition of Juniper Networks, and the "forced resignation" of DOJ Antitrust Division Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater. Additionally, state AGs from Washington, California, Nevada, New York, and Oregon released a joint statement announcing that they are stepping up enforcement of "illegal" mergers "as the federal government has pulled back on corporate oversight."
The division between federal and state policy extends beyond enforcement actions to include legislation. A growing number of states have implemented or proposed legislation targeting personalized pricing - sometimes called surveillance pricing - which is a strategy in which sellers use detailed individual customer data to charge a price based on what the data suggest the customer is willing to pay. In November 2025, New York began enforcing a law that required companies to disclose their use of personalized pricing. Since then, Maryland, Connecticut, and New Jersey have gone further, prohibiting the use of surveillance prices under certain conditions. Meanwhile, the FTC has moved more slowly, having only published a preliminary enforcement policy document that remains under review.
Federal Preemption
Representative Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust, released a discussion draft of legislation, the National Merger Uniformity and Federal Exclusivity Act. The draft follows multiple attempts by Democratic state attorneys general to challenge mergers and acquisitions that had been approved by multiple federal and foreign regulators. The proposed legislation would provide the FTC and DOJ with exclusive authority to review or challenge certain mergers and acquisitions that are:
1. reasonably likely to have substantial direct economic effects in five or more States;
2. reasonably likely to have substantial direct effects on international commerce, foreign markets, international supply chains, imports, exports, or trade between the United States and one or more foreign nations
"
Substantial direct economic effects," according to the text, include those that have a "material effect on competition, prices, output, employment, wages, innovation, investment, production, distribution, consumer welfare, and commerce."
The discussion draft would also prohibit states from initiating, maintaining, intervening in, joining, or continuing any judicial or administrative proceeding that would prevent delay, condition, or unwind a covered transaction. Moreover, the discussion draft expressly preempts all state antitrust laws and state-level merger notification requirements that apply to covered transactions.
The confidential nature of merger prenotification makes it difficult to estimate the share of transactions that would be covered by this legislation. Transaction value data from the annual Hart-Scott-Rodino report for fiscal year 2025 could serve as a proxy, assuming low-value transactions are more likely to involve companies that have "substantial direct economic effects" in fewer than five states. For example, the data show that just over 70 percent of transactions have a value of more than $300 million. The FTC and DOJ are more likely to have exclusive authority to review or challenge these mergers under the draft legislation. In other words, states would be prohibited from seeking relief in a large swath of cases.
* * *
Figure 2. Acquisitions by Size of Transaction
* * *
Under this proposal, states are reduced to a mere advisory role. State AGs can submit comments, evidence, economic analysis, or recommendations to the DOJ or FTC. They can also participate in any review process, but doing so requires an invitation from the federal antitrust enforcers.
The Pros and Cons
The Pros
Regulatory Risk: Paramount's acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery is instructive in the risks firms face when multiple jurisdictions reach different conclusions. A coalition of 12 attorneys general led by California reached a settlement with the merged firm even after federal enforcers at the DOJ determined that the transaction was not likely to result in harm to competition. The settlement included a five-year commitment to increase film output, a minimum of $1.5 billion commitment to bolster domestic film production, and a $47.5 million fund for workers impacted by the merger.
This risk acts as an economic drag. Restricting state involvement for mergers that span across several states or have international implications reduces the regulatory costs and risks associated with a transaction. In an extreme, although unlikely scenario, firms would no longer have to navigate merger reviews in potentially 50 states, the District of Columbia, and by two federal regulators.
State Politicization: Limiting state involvement can also reduce the potential for politically motivated litigation. State AGs, who are often elected (and therefore have a strong incentive to respond to political pressures), could use their power to challenge competitively benign mergers of politically unpopular targets. Even if a particular state AG does not initiate the case, the ability to join cases can make the same political statement.
The Cons
Federal Politicization: Contrary to the potential for state-level politicization of merger cases, the recent rise in state enforcement stems from, in part, similar allegations at the federal level. Removing states as an independent check on federal regulators - who can be equally persuaded by politics - could allow competitively harmful mergers to escape review.
Local Harms: A uniform standard for merger review may fail to account for local economic harm that affects a specific state or region of states than evaluating national markets. While states would still be permitted to submit comments and economic analysis, it is unclear if federal regulators will consider such local concerns.
Resource Allocation: Merger litigation is costly and weighs on the decision by a federal agency to challenge a transaction. Reducing the role states play in merger enforcement puts added pressure on limited federal resources to conduct investigations. States can help defray these costs if they are able to join cases and pool resources.
Conclusion
In response to rising state-level antitrust enforcement, Chairman Fitzgerald's draft legislation to grant the FTC and DOJ exclusive authority over certain merger transactions seeks to balance the complexity of multi-jurisdictional merger investigations with the states' authority to preserve local competition.
Proponents will argue that eliminating the multi-jurisdictional costs and risks would reduce economic drag while critics warn the legislation would strip states of its ability to put a check on federal enforcers and sufficiently address concerns of localized harm.
* * *
Fred Ashton is the Director of Competition Policy at the American Action Forum.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/state-ags-go-on-antitrust-offensive/
[Category: Think Tank]
* * *
October 22, 2026
State AGs Go on Antitrust Offensive
Fred Ashton
Executive Summary
* Amid increased state-level antitrust enforcement, House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee Chairman Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI) introduced a discussion draft of legislation giving the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice exclusive authority to review or challenge certain mergers and acquisitions of interstate or international interest.
* State attorneys general are increasingly enforcing federal and state antitrust ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 -- The American Action Forum issued the following insight: * * * October 22, 2026 State AGs Go on Antitrust Offensive Fred Ashton Executive Summary * Amid increased state-level antitrust enforcement, House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee Chairman Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI) introduced a discussion draft of legislation giving the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice exclusive authority to review or challenge certain mergers and acquisitions of interstate or international interest. * State attorneys general are increasingly enforcing federal and state antitrustand consumer protection laws independently, while state legislatures are passing policies to fill perceived gaps in federal law.
* The proposed federal preemption legislation aims to balance the complexity of multi-jurisdictional merger investigations with the states' authority to preserve local competition.
-
Introduction
House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee Chairman Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI) introduced a discussion draft of legislation that would grant the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) exclusive authority to review or challenge certain mergers and acquisitions of interstate or international interest. The proposal comes amid a sharp rise in state-level antitrust enforcement.
State attorneys general (AGs) are taking a more active role enforcing federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. State AGs have challenged mergers independent of federal regulators including Paramount's acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery despite the merger being approved by 68 national competition authorities, including the U.S. Department of Justice. At the same time, state legislatures are adopting new policies to fill perceived gaps in federal law, specifically those related to personalized pricing and the use of common pricing algorithms.
The proposed federal preemption legislation aims to balance the complexity of multi-jurisdictional merger investigations with the states' authority to preserve local competition.
The Rise of State Enforcement
State AGs have intensified competition enforcement and merger challenges during the second Trump Administration. Multi-state AG coalitions have taken action to challenge several transactions including Paramount's acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery and Nexstar Media Group's merger with Tegna, and have even intervened in the Tunney Act proceedings that sought to unwind Hewlett Packard Enterprises' approved purchase of Juniper Networks.
Data from the National Association of Attorneys General underscores the uptick in state-level antitrust enforcement.
[View table in the link at bottom.]
The rise in state enforcement stems, in part, from allegations of impropriety at the federal antitrust enforcement agencies involving the merger between American Express Global Business Travel and CWT Holdings, Hewlett Packard Enterprises' acquisition of Juniper Networks, and the "forced resignation" of DOJ Antitrust Division Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater. Additionally, state AGs from Washington, California, Nevada, New York, and Oregon released a joint statement announcing that they are stepping up enforcement of "illegal" mergers "as the federal government has pulled back on corporate oversight."
The division between federal and state policy extends beyond enforcement actions to include legislation. A growing number of states have implemented or proposed legislation targeting personalized pricing - sometimes called surveillance pricing - which is a strategy in which sellers use detailed individual customer data to charge a price based on what the data suggest the customer is willing to pay. In November 2025, New York began enforcing a law that required companies to disclose their use of personalized pricing. Since then, Maryland, Connecticut, and New Jersey have gone further, prohibiting the use of surveillance prices under certain conditions. Meanwhile, the FTC has moved more slowly, having only published a preliminary enforcement policy document that remains under review.
Federal Preemption
Representative Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust, released a discussion draft of legislation, the National Merger Uniformity and Federal Exclusivity Act. The draft follows multiple attempts by Democratic state attorneys general to challenge mergers and acquisitions that had been approved by multiple federal and foreign regulators. The proposed legislation would provide the FTC and DOJ with exclusive authority to review or challenge certain mergers and acquisitions that are:
1. reasonably likely to have substantial direct economic effects in five or more States;
2. reasonably likely to have substantial direct effects on international commerce, foreign markets, international supply chains, imports, exports, or trade between the United States and one or more foreign nations
"
Substantial direct economic effects," according to the text, include those that have a "material effect on competition, prices, output, employment, wages, innovation, investment, production, distribution, consumer welfare, and commerce."
The discussion draft would also prohibit states from initiating, maintaining, intervening in, joining, or continuing any judicial or administrative proceeding that would prevent delay, condition, or unwind a covered transaction. Moreover, the discussion draft expressly preempts all state antitrust laws and state-level merger notification requirements that apply to covered transactions.
The confidential nature of merger prenotification makes it difficult to estimate the share of transactions that would be covered by this legislation. Transaction value data from the annual Hart-Scott-Rodino report for fiscal year 2025 could serve as a proxy, assuming low-value transactions are more likely to involve companies that have "substantial direct economic effects" in fewer than five states. For example, the data show that just over 70 percent of transactions have a value of more than $300 million. The FTC and DOJ are more likely to have exclusive authority to review or challenge these mergers under the draft legislation. In other words, states would be prohibited from seeking relief in a large swath of cases.
* * *
Figure 2. Acquisitions by Size of Transaction
* * *
Under this proposal, states are reduced to a mere advisory role. State AGs can submit comments, evidence, economic analysis, or recommendations to the DOJ or FTC. They can also participate in any review process, but doing so requires an invitation from the federal antitrust enforcers.
The Pros and Cons
The Pros
Regulatory Risk: Paramount's acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery is instructive in the risks firms face when multiple jurisdictions reach different conclusions. A coalition of 12 attorneys general led by California reached a settlement with the merged firm even after federal enforcers at the DOJ determined that the transaction was not likely to result in harm to competition. The settlement included a five-year commitment to increase film output, a minimum of $1.5 billion commitment to bolster domestic film production, and a $47.5 million fund for workers impacted by the merger.
This risk acts as an economic drag. Restricting state involvement for mergers that span across several states or have international implications reduces the regulatory costs and risks associated with a transaction. In an extreme, although unlikely scenario, firms would no longer have to navigate merger reviews in potentially 50 states, the District of Columbia, and by two federal regulators.
State Politicization: Limiting state involvement can also reduce the potential for politically motivated litigation. State AGs, who are often elected (and therefore have a strong incentive to respond to political pressures), could use their power to challenge competitively benign mergers of politically unpopular targets. Even if a particular state AG does not initiate the case, the ability to join cases can make the same political statement.
The Cons
Federal Politicization: Contrary to the potential for state-level politicization of merger cases, the recent rise in state enforcement stems from, in part, similar allegations at the federal level. Removing states as an independent check on federal regulators - who can be equally persuaded by politics - could allow competitively harmful mergers to escape review.
Local Harms: A uniform standard for merger review may fail to account for local economic harm that affects a specific state or region of states than evaluating national markets. While states would still be permitted to submit comments and economic analysis, it is unclear if federal regulators will consider such local concerns.
Resource Allocation: Merger litigation is costly and weighs on the decision by a federal agency to challenge a transaction. Reducing the role states play in merger enforcement puts added pressure on limited federal resources to conduct investigations. States can help defray these costs if they are able to join cases and pool resources.
Conclusion
In response to rising state-level antitrust enforcement, Chairman Fitzgerald's draft legislation to grant the FTC and DOJ exclusive authority over certain merger transactions seeks to balance the complexity of multi-jurisdictional merger investigations with the states' authority to preserve local competition.
Proponents will argue that eliminating the multi-jurisdictional costs and risks would reduce economic drag while critics warn the legislation would strip states of its ability to put a check on federal enforcers and sufficiently address concerns of localized harm.
* * *
Fred Ashton is the Director of Competition Policy at the American Action Forum.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/state-ags-go-on-antitrust-offensive/
[Category: Think Tank]