Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Woodson Center Founder: Strategic Interests of Conservatives and the Poor Are Deeply Aligned
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Capital Research Center posted the following essay to the Giving Review on June 12, 2026, by Robert L. Woodson Sr., founder and president of the Woodson Center:
* * *
In 1981, civil-rights activist and community-development leader Robert L. Woodson, Sr.--who passed away last month--co-founded the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, later renamed the Woodson Center. He is the only recipient of both the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation's "Genius" Fellowship award and the Bradley Prize awarded by Milwaukee's Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.
In
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Capital Research Center posted the following essay to the Giving Review on June 12, 2026, by Robert L. Woodson Sr., founder and president of the Woodson Center:
* * *
In 1981, civil-rights activist and community-development leader Robert L. Woodson, Sr.--who passed away last month--co-founded the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, later renamed the Woodson Center. He is the only recipient of both the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation's "Genius" Fellowship award and the Bradley Prize awarded by Milwaukee's Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.
In2005, Woodson participated in the Hudson Institute's Bradley Center for Philanthropy & Civic Renewal's first Bradley Symposium in Washington, D.C., "Vision and Philanthropy." To honor and remember him, we republished edited excerpts of his comments here. "Let's suppose that the nation totally embraced the conservative vision," he said. "How would it affect, in practical ways, the plight of the least of God's children?"
* * *
Robert L. Woodson, Sr., and the interests of the poor and minorities
To conservatism and conservative philanthropy, the Woodson Center founder suggested conscious and active alignment with new and different audiences.
-
I have written repeatedly exposing the damage and danger of the Left's decades-old strategy of portraying Black Americans as helpless victims of racism and the legacy of America's indelible original sin of slavery, and the 1619 Project, supported and propagated by The New York Times, is the latest iteration of this assault. But when I couple my comments with a criticism of the Right's failure to respond with an effective agenda to address poverty, I am often met with complaints that I just keep saying the same things. That response reminds me of the members of one congregation who complained that their pastor had preached 10 sermons in a row on adultery. When the elders asked him when he was going to stop and move to other topics, he replied, "When you all stop doing it, I will stop talking about it."
The Right fails to recognize and build on the fact that the strategic interests of conservatives and the poor and dispossessed are essentially aligned, while the interests of the Left are in fundamental opposition to the interests of the poor. The Left has made a commodity of the poor in a poverty industry that includes government bureaucrats whose careers depend on having large cadres of dependents to serve, as well as academicians and "experts" for whom the conditions of the poor are the grievances on which their celebrity status and book sales thrive.
In contrast, conservatives are job-creators whose enterprises thrive as men and women rise from poverty to serve as responsible and trustable employees, and even become entrepreneurs who contribute to the vitality of the economy. Yet, conservatives have easily been cast as greedy curmudgeons because the bulk of their proposals dealing with poverty are concerned only with budget cuts in government programs or more-stringent requirements for their recipients.
The pronouncements and demands from the Left rely on the findings of their "failure studies," in which analysts tally the ranks of the homeless, the addicted, and high-school dropouts in low-income communities. But if their studies show that 70% of the residents suffer these afflictions, the flip side is that 30% of households, confronted with the same odds, are somehow able to rise above those conditions. Conservatives should go into those neighborhoods to do capacity studies and identify oases of excellence and community leaders who serve as agents of healing and rejuvenation. Analysts, scholars, and funders on the Right should document models of the resilience, perseverance, and ingenuity that have enabled achievement against the odds. In the process, they will learn that the community and individual uplift that has been accomplished in the face of daunting conditions has been built on a foundation of America's founding principles and values.
The most-powerful antidote to the poison being perpetrated by the 1619 Project and its ilk is not a counterargument presented in white papers or televised panels, but testimonies from the men and women who serve as living evidence of the foundational values and virtues that have made possible the rise of generations of all races and ethnicities.
Conservatives are losing the cultural war because they lack a ground game. They should recognize and build on the strategic interests they share with the poor and minorities. The war will not be won from ivory towers of academia and policy analysis. Issuing white papers at conservative conferences and defending them on the Fox network is not a winning strategy. Conservatives should go into those neighborhoods to identify and support their assets and the victories that have been achieved through the founding principles and values. To date, the Right has received this call with indifference.
In 2005, I was able to present these challenges in person through panel discussions and presentations. In 2020, I am limited to presenting these issues in written form since the invitations have been withdrawn. My message remains the same.
* * *
Robert L. Woodson, Sr., Founder & President, National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/robert-l-woodson-sr-and-the-interests-of-the-poor-and-minorities/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Manhattan Institute Issues Commentary to Bloomberg Opinion: Don't Rely on the Bank of Mom and Dad
NEW YORK, June 13 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on June 12, 2026, by senior fellow Allison Schrager to Bloomberg Opinion:
* * *
Don't Rely on the Bank of Mom and Dad
In today's America, one of the rites of passage that marks the transition to full adulthood is paying your own phone bill. By this standard, many people -- even those well into middle age -- are stuck in an extended adolescence.
A survey released this month by the insurance firm Northwestern Mutual says that many Americans, including some in their 50s and 60s, rely on their parents for
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, June 13 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on June 12, 2026, by senior fellow Allison Schrager to Bloomberg Opinion:
* * *
Don't Rely on the Bank of Mom and Dad
In today's America, one of the rites of passage that marks the transition to full adulthood is paying your own phone bill. By this standard, many people -- even those well into middle age -- are stuck in an extended adolescence.
A survey released this month by the insurance firm Northwestern Mutual says that many Americans, including some in their 50s and 60s, rely on their parents forfinancial help. Some 56% of all respondents say it is "harder to achieve financial independence today than it was for previous generations."
The Federal Reserve also conducts an annual survey on financial well-being, and it also reported an increase in the reliance on parents to pay the bills. About 23% of respondents needed some outside help in 2025, compared to 10% in 2017 -- including more than 25% of Americans between the ages of 30 and 44.
In many ways this is not surprising; the US is in the grip of an affordability crisis. The cost of housing has soared, as have energy and food. Wages fell last year after accounting for inflation, and the job market has weakened, especially for new graduates.
Student debt is at a record high. Meanwhile (for now at least), many young people see living in a big, expensive city as critical to launching their career. And older Americans, who have more wealth than ever after a lifetime of saving and healthy stock returns, may think it only natural that they give a little back to their children.
Continue reading the entire piece here at Bloomberg Opinion (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2026-06-12/america-s-financial-divide-is-deepened-by-overreliance-on-parents?srnd=undefined)
* * *
Allison Schrager is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal.
* * *
Original text here: https://manhattan.institute/article/dont-rely-on-the-bank-of-mom-and-dad
[Category: ThinkTank]
Hudson Institute Issues Commentary to Washington Examiner: American Presence in Eastern Europe Remains Irreplaceable
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on June 12, 2026, by Daniel Kochis, senior fellow in the Center on Europe and Eurasia, to the Washington Examiner:
* * *
American Presence in Eastern Europe Remains Irreplaceable
As we approach the 2026 NATO Summit, the alliance's eastward shift in its center of gravity continues to gain momentum.
Last week, reports emerged that the United States is now in the early stages of internal conversations within NATO to expand nuclear
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on June 12, 2026, by Daniel Kochis, senior fellow in the Center on Europe and Eurasia, to the Washington Examiner:
* * *
American Presence in Eastern Europe Remains Irreplaceable
As we approach the 2026 NATO Summit, the alliance's eastward shift in its center of gravity continues to gain momentum.
Last week, reports emerged that the United States is now in the early stages of internal conversations within NATO to expand nuclearsharing arrangements to include countries that joined the alliance within the past 30 years, such as Lithuania and Poland.
While the U.S. forward deploys tactical nuclear weapons to bases in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, these conversations do not, for now, relate to opening new weapons depots, but rather to basing dual-capable aircraft -- those able to deliver conventional or nuclear ordnance -- further east.
Under nuclear sharing arrangements, some member states voluntarily contribute dual-capable aircraft, such as the F-35, F-16, or Tornado, which are modified and certified to carry U.S. tactical nuclear bombs in future scenarios, while personnel from those countries are trained for the mission.
The latter contribution is reportedly what is currently under discussion. Poland is procuring 32 F-35 aircraft, and the conversation with Lithuania appears tied to hosting American -- or, considering their close ties, in the future German -- dual-capable aircraft in the country.
Last week, Lithuanian Defense Minister Robertas Kaunas stated deployments during peacetime were not under consideration, but that "in times of crisis or, let us say, even during war, we should probably utilise all possible opportunities provided to us by NATO and the nuclear arsenals of the United States or France."
The timing of the reports is instructive, coming on the heels of the U.S. cancellation of a 4,000-strong rotational force to Eastern Europe, which has left allies feeling anxious.
Lithuania, which has invested heavily in recent years to upgrade bases and training grounds for hosting U.S. soldiers, saw a contingent of 1,000 rotational troops from the U.S. depart last week without a clear replacement, the first time a gap between rotations has occurred since 2020.
Lithuanian officials have received assurances from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth that a new U.S. rotation will eventually arrive, but the size and timing of the deployment remain opaque.
Any decision to remove American forces from the continent or cut rotations is likely to entail a financial cost to the U.S., whereas many host nations in Europe already heavily subsidize the presence. Some have even expressed a willingness to cover the entire cost of basing U.S. forces.
For American allies that feel the threat from Russia most acutely, the presence of U.S. servicemembers on their soil serves as an outsize deterrent that cannot be easily replaced.
While any conversations around expanding nuclear sharing arrangements with a new cadre of alliance member states is today still a nascent idea, the public airing of this possibility is meant to send a message to the Kremlin at a time when the Pentagon appears intent on shrinking its conventional posture in Europe.
Last month, the U.S. announced, with immediate effect, substantial cuts to forces earmarked to reinforce Europe in the event of future conflict. While these changes are for the time being largely an exercise on paper, their importance for NATO deterrence should not be understated.
Signaling a strict limit on American support to allies in a future NATO war against Russia is not without considerable risk.
While the Trump administration sees a paring back of U.S. conventional posture in Europe as a forcing function for allies to rebuild capabilities quickly and at scale, the delta before European NATO can backfill the recently announced U.S. reductions will be traversed over years rather than weeks.
Regardless, heading into Ankara, the fact that expanding nuclear sharing is under discussion underscores how the accumulation of strength in eastern Europe has caught Washington's attention and is actively transforming the alliance.
Last year, NATO members with land borders with Russia spent an average of 3.61% of GDP on defense, compared with 2.49% across the broader alliance.
Already leading the pack on spending, these allies continue to charge ahead. This year, Estonia and Lithuania will spend 5.4% of GDP on defense, leading the sprint on investment, with Latvia (4.91%) and Poland (4.48%) not far behind.
Yet even as Eastern European allies shoulder a growing share of the defense burden, their interest in deeper nuclear cooperation with NATO underscores a reality that remains unchanged: no European capability can fully substitute for the deterrent value of a visible and sustained American military presence on the continent.
Read in the Washington Examiner (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/courage-strength-optimism/4602864/american-presence-eastern-europe-irreplaceable/).
* * *
At A Glance:
Daniel Kochis is a senior fellow in the Center on Europe and Eurasia at Hudson Institute.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/security-alliances/american-presence-eastern-europe-remains-irreplaceable-daniel-kochis
[Category: ThinkTank]
Hudson Institute Issues Commentary to Arab News: NATO Can No Longer Treat the Arctic as a Peripheral Concern
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on June 12, 2026, by senior fellow Luke Coffey to Arab News:
* * *
NATO Can No Longer Treat the Arctic as a Peripheral Concern
The next NATO Summit is now only weeks away. With no end in sight to Russia's war with Ukraine and instability continuing in the Middle East between the US and Iran, the leaders of the alliance have a full in-tray. Even so, NATO recently turned its attention to another region, one that it often overlooks:
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on June 12, 2026, by senior fellow Luke Coffey to Arab News:
* * *
NATO Can No Longer Treat the Arctic as a Peripheral Concern
The next NATO Summit is now only weeks away. With no end in sight to Russia's war with Ukraine and instability continuing in the Middle East between the US and Iran, the leaders of the alliance have a full in-tray. Even so, NATO recently turned its attention to another region, one that it often overlooks:the Arctic.
NATO last week activated its Forward Land Forces battlegroup in the Arctic nation of Finland. The Forward Land Forces are battlegroups of a few thousand soldiers that were created to bolster the alliance's military presence along its eastern flank after Russia's annexation of Crimea. Originally, NATO's forward presence was centered on Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. Since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the concept has expanded along the entirety of the alliance's eastern flank.
After Finland joined NATO in 2023, there was discussion about Helsinki hosting such a battlegroup of its own. This came to fruition only this year. Neighboring Sweden, also a new NATO member and fellow Arctic country, will command the unit. The battlegroup will focus predominantly on warfare in Arctic conditions. Including Finland in the concept marks a major change in NATO's force posture, not only in the Baltic region but in the Arctic as well.
On the same day that the battlegroup in Finland was activated, NATO announced that an Italian scientific research ship would be sent to the Arctic as part of Task Force X-Arctic. This new task force will operate for 18 months above the Arctic Circle to improve NATO's situational awareness while testing new technologies. A particular focus will be unmanned systems and how they operate in the Arctic's harsh environmental conditions.
The fact that the Italian navy will lead this mission is notable. In recent years, there has been an informal divide inside the alliance over where the main threats are coming from. Southern European member states tend to look toward North Africa and the Mediterranean as their primary sources of security concern. Eastern and Northern European members tend to look toward Russia and, increasingly, the Arctic. Having Italy lead this task force shows that a broader consensus is emerging inside NATO about the importance of the High North.
Finally, the US announced the creation of Nordic Bridge, a US-led initiative designed to improve coordination among its combat commands, including US Northern Command, which is primarily responsible for the defense of North America, and US European Command, which oversees US military operations across Europe. The goal is to improve American coordination and response in the Arctic.
For years, the administrative division of the Arctic between NORTHCOM and EUCOM has made it harder for Washington to develop a common and coherent approach to the region. With Nordic Bridge, this should no longer be the case.
The Arctic, rich in energy and critical mineral resources, is growing in strategic importance. NATO's recent focus on the region reflects a new trend for the alliance. Until recently, it did not formally focus on the Arctic because of internal divisions among member states. Some allies wanted NATO to be more involved there. Others believed the Arctic was primarily a matter of national concern for the countries in the region, not an issue for an intergovernmental security alliance.
These views are changing for three reasons.
First, there is growing concern over Russia's actions in the Arctic. In recent years, Moscow has reopened, refurbished or built new military bases across the region. A large share of Russia's naval nuclear strike capability is assigned to the Northern Fleet, headquartered in the Arctic. Russia has also invested heavily in military units specially trained and equipped to fight in Arctic conditions.
Of course, Russia is the world's largest Arctic country, so it is natural that it would be active there. But when NATO considers Russia's behavior elsewhere, especially in Ukraine, it has every reason to be concerned about Moscow's intentions in the Arctic.
Second, Finland and Sweden's entry into the alliance all but forces NATO to focus more seriously on the Arctic. For decades after NATO's founding in 1949, both countries remained militarily nonaligned. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 changed attitudes in Helsinki and Stockholm almost overnight. Finland joined NATO in 2023 and Sweden followed in 2024.
Their accession means that seven of the world's eight Arctic countries are now members of the same security alliance. Only Russia remains outside NATO. This reality inevitably places the Arctic on NATO's agenda.
Finally, President Donald Trump has helped spur the Arctic debate inside NATO with his remarks about Greenland. His desire to acquire Greenland has been divisive inside the alliance. But he has also raised legitimate concerns about growing outside influence in the Arctic, particularly around Greenland and the wider North Atlantic.
This has motivated European countries to invest more in Arctic security. It is no coincidence that NATO's recent Arctic initiatives have come on the heels of renewed American attention on Greenland.
An increased NATO role in the Arctic can help bring stability to the region. The Arctic remains a zone of low tension and it is in everyone's interest that it stays that way. However, low tension does not mean no competition. Respecting the sovereignty of countries in the region, while maintaining the ability to defend and enforce that sovereignty, is what will ultimately keep the Arctic secure.
For decades, NATO treated the Arctic as a peripheral concern. That is no longer possible. With seven Arctic countries now inside the alliance, Russia becoming more assertive in the region and the strategic value of the High North increasing, NATO has both a responsibility and a role to play. The alliance's recent moves in Finland, through Task Force X-Arctic, and with Nordic Bridge show that it is beginning to take that role seriously.
Read in Arab News (https://www.arabnews.com/node/2646909).
* * *
At A Glance:
Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/security-alliances/nato-can-no-longer-treat-arctic-peripheral-concern-luke-coffey
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center Issues InfluenceWatch Wrapup on June 12, 2026
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following InfluenceWatch wrapup on June 12, 2026, by Jonathan Harsh:
* * *
InfluenceWatch, a project of Capital Research Center, is a comprehensive and ever-evolving compilation of our research into the numerous advocacy groups, foundations, and donors working to influence the public policy process. The website offers transparency into these influencers' funding, motives, and connections while providing insight often neglected by other watchdog groups.
The information compiled in InfluenceWatch gives news outlets and other interested
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following InfluenceWatch wrapup on June 12, 2026, by Jonathan Harsh:
* * *
InfluenceWatch, a project of Capital Research Center, is a comprehensive and ever-evolving compilation of our research into the numerous advocacy groups, foundations, and donors working to influence the public policy process. The website offers transparency into these influencers' funding, motives, and connections while providing insight often neglected by other watchdog groups.
The information compiled in InfluenceWatch gives news outlets and other interestedparties research to use in reporting on significant topics that are often overlooked by the American public.
CRC is pleased to present some of the most significant additions to InfluenceWatch in the past week:
* Trust for Public Land Action Fund is a California-based advocacy group that organizes campaigns supporting state and local ballot measures to create or extend public funding for parks and land conservation. The group was created as the lobbying arm of the Trust for Public Land, a group that acquires and transfers private land to public entities for use as open spaces such as parks or trails. According to its website, as of 2026 the two groups have helped support the passage of 687 ballot measures that generated over $112 billion in voter approved funds.
* Repairers of the Breach is a North Carolina-based activist group that trains religious leaders and community organizers to promote left-of-center electoral and community-based policies. It was founded in 2015 by pastor William J. Barber II, who was previously the president of the North Carolina NAACP as well as a member of the national NAACP board of directors. Repairers of the Breach's funders have included the Foundation to Promote Open Society, the Ford Foundation, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, and the National Philanthropic Trust.
* People's World is an online newspaper that features "Marxist analysis and opinion developed by the Communist Party" and promotes left-of-center policies on topics such as labor, social justice, environmentalism, and immigration. According to its website, People's World is a continuation of the Daily Worker newspaper founded in 1924 to "raise the standards of struggle against the few who rob and plunder the many." It is a member of the International Labor Communications Association, while its staff are represented by the Chicago News Guild-Communication Workers of America. Some staff members also belong to other groups such as the National Writers Union.
* The African Climate Foundation is a regional climate group that advocates for left-of-center energy and climate policies in African countries. It also provides incubation and fiscal hosting services for local groups including New Economy Hub which has received funding from the Climate Emergency Collaboration Group, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the ClimateWorks Foundation. The African Climate Foundation has also received grants from the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.
* TechTonic Justice is a technology policy advocacy organization that opposes the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in determining eligibility for public benefits among low-income communities, such as healthcare and public housing. In 2025, TechTonic Justice received a $1.2 million, two-year grant from the Ford Foundation. In February 2025, the group's founder Kevin De Liban wrote an opinion piece for The Hillwarning that the Second Trump administration's embrace of AI to uncover government waste could negatively impact "civil rights, diversity, transgender people, reproductive health care (including abortion)...science, journalism, immigrants and low-wage workers."
* * *
Jonathan Harsh holds a master's degree in political science from James Madison University and a bachelor's degree in political science from Beloit College.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/influencewatch-friday-06-12-2026/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: Who Are G7's Top Performers?
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on June 12, 2026, by Victor Cha, president of the Geopolitics and Foreign Policy Department:
* * *
Who Are G7's Top Performers?
Leaders of the Group of Seven (G7) will convene in Evian-les-Bains on June 15-17, 2026, at a time of great geopolitical and economic disruption. This will be the first multilateral leaders' meeting of this elite club of advanced industrialized democracies since the start of U.S. and Israeli military action on Iran and the closing of the Strait of Hormuz. The war
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on June 12, 2026, by Victor Cha, president of the Geopolitics and Foreign Policy Department:
* * *
Who Are G7's Top Performers?
Leaders of the Group of Seven (G7) will convene in Evian-les-Bains on June 15-17, 2026, at a time of great geopolitical and economic disruption. This will be the first multilateral leaders' meeting of this elite club of advanced industrialized democracies since the start of U.S. and Israeli military action on Iran and the closing of the Strait of Hormuz. The warin Ukraine will also remain at the top of the agenda. The G7 leaders will seek to coordinate policies on AI--including EU regulations on the environmental and energy impact of data centers and the United States' exporting of the American AI stack--as well as on securing critical minerals supply chains.
In one sense, this year's G7 meeting represents a "back to the future" moment, bringing leaders together to coordinate macroeconomic policies in response to the disruption of oil supplies. The G7 meeting of financial ministers was first convened in 1973 in response to the first oil shock. Today, the G7 agenda has expanded dramatically to address broader global governance issues, including AI, development assistance, and managing China's rise.
The expanded agenda of the G7 begs the question: Is the G7 fit for purpose? Today, G7 countries represent an ever-decreasing fraction of the global population and global economy compared with the time of its formation in the 1970s. These trends cast doubt on whether this exclusive club of nations has the capabilities to address the broad range of global problems it has identified. The CSIS Geopolitics and Foreign Policy Department's project on global governance has collected data on which countries in the G7--as well as which ones outside of it--are high performers, in an effort to gauge their ability to accomplish the group's goals.
The G7 Is Not Representative as a Global Governance Institution
In 1980, the G7 accounted for 60.5 percent of world GDP and 13.8 percent of the world's population. Today, it accounts for 44.1 percent of world GDP and 9.6 percent of the global population. The G7 agenda, however, has globalized even as the bloc's share of the world has shrunk.
* * *
Figure 1: The G7's Declining Share of World GDP and Population, 1975-2024
* * *
Top G7 Global Governance Issues
CSIS scraped G7 leaders' statements from 2018 to 2024 to determine the priority list of global issues, weighted for the frequency of specific terms (there was no collective G7 leaders' statement in 2025 due to policy differences). Table 1 shows the top nine priorities ranked by growth in frequency of use in leaders' statements.
* * *
Table 1: Top Global Governance Issues Identifed by G7
* * *
Cross-country performance in seven of these nine priorities can be measured using publicly available metrics. (The Indo-Pacific and disarmament and nonproliferation issues have no available performance metrics and are therefore excluded from the rankings that follow).
G7 Performance Ranking on Selected Issues
We used a database of 347 performance metrics across the seven priority issue areas to create an aggregate weighted ranking (weighted proportionally for the number of available performance rankings). Among the group's seven members, the top three performers overall are Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
* * *
Table 2: Ranking of G7 Countries Across Priority Issue Areas
* * *
These comparative performance metrics allow CSIS to identify high-performing countries on the global governance issues that can enhance the G7's capabilities in accomplishing its mission. The United States ranks strongly on Ukraine and digital science and technology, for example. Germany is one of the highest performers on climate and economic resilience. France and Japan rank highest among G7 members on food security. The United Kingdom and Canada top the list on education and labor issues (see Figure 2).
Non-G7 Countries That Perform Well
Across all global governance issues identified as priorities by the G7 leaders' statements, the overall performance of Australia and South Korea compare favorably to that of G7 members (see Table 3). Australia, for example, outperforms all G7 countries except the United States on issues of global economy, finance, and sustainable development; ranks ahead of all G7 members except Germany and the United Kingdom on economic resilience; and outperforms all except Germany, the United Kingdom, and Canada on labor and education. South Korea also outperforms Italy across all global governance issues. On digital science and technology, South Korea ranks second only to the United States.
* * *
Table 3: G9 Performance Rankings, 2026 Edition
* * *
The matrix below shows all nine countries' average rank in each of the seven measurable issue areas.
* * *
Figure 2: G9 Country Performance by Issue Area
* * *
The Case for Expanding the G7 to the G9
While expanded membership is not on the agenda at Evian-les-Bains, future G7 hosts should seriously consider an expanded "G9" formula to increase the effectiveness of the group on the issues it cares about. Specifically, two countries--Australia and South Korea--are strong candidates for inclusion in a G9 configuration.
South Korea and Australia's highly rated performance alongside G7 countries is in part reflected in the proactive role both have played on global governance issues. For example, South Korea recently hosted a massive AI summit, positioning itself as a central global hub of AI innovation and infrastructure. Australia has been an active leader on climate action, development transparency, and digital safety norms.
It is also noteworthy that other notable geopolitical actors, while important liaison partners of the G7 club, measure up less well in terms of performance. India and Brazil, for example, do not compare favorably to G7 members on the list of high-priority issues. They both ranked below the lowest performing G7 member on every issue area except for climate (where both rank only below Germany, the United Kingdom, and France as high performers).
* * *
Victor Cha is president of the Geopolitics and Foreign Policy Department and Korea chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/who-are-g7s-top-performers
[Category: ThinkTank]
American Action Forum Issues Commentary: Tracker - The Federal Reserve's Balance Sheet Assets
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on June 12, 2026, by Financial Services Policy Director Thomas Kingsley:
* * *
Tracker: The Federal Reserve's Balance Sheet Assets
Introduction
This tracker follows the Federal Reserve's (Fed) total consolidated assets, held on its balance sheet, as the best indicator of the Fed's direct intervention in the economy.
Context
The Fed's dual mandate requires it to ensure both stable prices and maximum employment. The traditional tool the Fed uses to accomplish these goals is the adjustment of the federal funds rate,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on June 12, 2026, by Financial Services Policy Director Thomas Kingsley:
* * *
Tracker: The Federal Reserve's Balance Sheet Assets
Introduction
This tracker follows the Federal Reserve's (Fed) total consolidated assets, held on its balance sheet, as the best indicator of the Fed's direct intervention in the economy.
Context
The Fed's dual mandate requires it to ensure both stable prices and maximum employment. The traditional tool the Fed uses to accomplish these goals is the adjustment of the federal funds rate,the short-term interest rate that determines how much it costs for banks to lend to each other overnight. The 2007-2008 financial crisis, however, demonstrated that even lowering the interest rate to zero was considered insufficient to shore up economies in freefall, and the Fed turned to more unusual tactics.
One of these measures was what the Fed refers to as "large-scale asset purchases," which is more commonly known as "quantitative easing." Under this process, the Fed enters the market to buy securities, typically mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and Treasuries, injecting both capital and liquidity into the market. This approach is not without risks - for the first time in its history, the Fed is regulator, supervisor, and now participant in the economy.
The development of quantitative easing as a go-to tool for the Fed in times of crisis has led to an unprecedented focus on one of its traditionally unremarkable aspects - the Fed total assets. Just as with any other firm, securities that the Fed purchases are considered assets and therefore are represented on the Fed's balance sheet. This therefore is the most reflective guide of the state of quantitative easing and, by extension, the degree to which the Fed has deemed it necessary to intervene in the economy.
Each week, the Federal Reserve publishes its balance sheet, typically on Wednesday afternoon around 4:30 p.m.
As of June 10, the Fed's assets stand at $6.7 trillion, up more nearly $14 billion from the prior week and over $48 billion higher than a year ago.
Sources:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WALCL
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TREAST
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WSHOMCB
* * *
Thomas Kingsley is the Director of Financial Services Policy at the American Action Forum.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/tracker-the-federal-reserves-balance-sheet/
[Category: Think Tank]
