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]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: What Will It Take to Lower Housing Costs in Minnesota? Our New Report Has the Answer
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, June 13 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary by economist Martha Njolomole:
* * *
What will it take to lower housing costs in Minnesota? Our new report has the answer
Minnesotans are concerned about the cost of housing, and rightly so. With the median home price exceeding $400,000, the Twin Cities metro is the most expensive housing market in the Midwest. After adjusting for high income levels, the Twin Cities rank as the fourth most expensive among the
... Show Full Article
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, June 13 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary by economist Martha Njolomole:
* * *
What will it take to lower housing costs in Minnesota? Our new report has the answer
Minnesotans are concerned about the cost of housing, and rightly so. With the median home price exceeding $400,000, the Twin Cities metro is the most expensive housing market in the Midwest. After adjusting for high income levels, the Twin Cities rank as the fourth most expensive among thetop 10 most populous Midwest metros.
Housing costs must come down. But how?
As American Experiment's recently released Affordability Agenda notes, housing is unaffordable due to a mismatch between demand and supply. While money printing during the COVID-19 pandemic fueled price hikes across the board, the U.S. also hasn't built enough housing to keep up with demand. This has created sustainable upward pressure on prices.
Up For Growth estimates a national shortage of 3.8 million homes. Minnesota needs nearly 100,000 homes, with the Twin Cities responsible for approximately three-quarters of that deficit.
Tackling this shortage will require comprehensive reform. State and local governments must remove the various regulatory hurdles they have placed on housing construction and make it easier for developers to work.
I discuss several of the necessary reforms below, and in more detail here (https://www.americanexperiment.org/reports/supplying-hope-and-demanding-real-affordability).
[View figure in the link at bottom.]
How to increase housing supply -- local zoning and land use reform
Through zoning, local governments decide where housing can be built. They also dictate housing features through several land-use regulations, such as minimum lot sizes and setback rules. Taken together, restrictive zoning and land-use rules limit the production of affordable housing options, including smaller-sized single-family homes, duplexes, and townhouses.
So, to encourage housing development while maintaining autonomy, local governments need to take the lead in relaxing zoning and land-use rules.
Beyond zoning, local governments must also streamline the permitting process -- by limiting discretionary approvals. Permitting housing by right, if it meets broader zoning requirements, would reduce uncertainty and delays for developers.
Reducing development fees -- which are generally passed down to homeowners -- would also reduce the cost of new homes.
The role of state policymakers
According to the most recent State Energy Efficiency Scorecard from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEE), Minnesota imposes the country's eighth most stringent energy-saving building codes. Among the 12 Midwest states, Minnesota ranked second only to Illinois
Certainly, tougher energy rules can reduce home energy use. But they also raise housing costs by complicating the building process or necessitating the use of expensive materials. For instance, Minnesota is the only Midwestern state to mandate the installation of balanced mechanical ventilation systems. These can cost up to five times as much as exhaust-only systems allowed in neighboring states.
Minnesota's energy-saving rules will only get tougher and costlier due to a 2024 law that requires frequent energy code updates with the intention of cutting new home energy use by 70 percent by 2038. Estimates from the Housing Affordability Institute show that the 2038 mandate could cost between "$25,773 and $44,171 per home by 2038," further worsening the housing affordability crisis.
To improve affordability, state lawmakers should repeal the 2038 mandate and relax other existing energy rules.
Beyond this, state policymakers should also encourage the construction of multifamily housing by legalizing mid-sized single-exit stairway apartments. With modern safety measures such as smoke detectors, these should be just as safe as other types of housing.
Why incentives don't work
Subsidies do not address shortages; they merely transfer costs onto taxpayers. Even worse, when supply is limited, subsidies intensify competition, further raising prices.
If targeted at developers, as suggested by candidate for Governor Amy Klobuchar, tax credits and grants fail to create extra housing. Instead, developers pocket money for housing that they likely would have built even without incentives. The credits get factored into the final cost of a new home.
Another politically popular solution, demonizing corporate landlords, can also have a chilling effect on housing development. Corporate landlords often increase the supply of rental homes, lowering costs.
Supply-side reforms work because they impose zero costs on taxpayers. They merely address artificial hurdles standing in the way of housing construction.
* * *
Martha Njolomole is an Economist at Center of the American Experiment.
martha.njolomole@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/what-will-it-take-to-lower-housing-costs-in-minnesota-our-new-report-has-the-answer/
[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]
AFPI Congratulates Peru President-elect Keiko Fujimori
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on June 12, 2026:
* * *
AFPI congratulates Peru President-elect Keiko Fujimori
Today, the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) congratulates President-elect Keiko Fujimori on her victory in Peru's presidential election. We commend the Peruvian people for their commitment to democracy and their success in carrying out a free, fair, and peaceful election.
Fujimori will become Peru's first female president after campaigning on restoring public security, strengthening economic growth, and ending the political
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on June 12, 2026:
* * *
AFPI congratulates Peru President-elect Keiko Fujimori
Today, the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) congratulates President-elect Keiko Fujimori on her victory in Peru's presidential election. We commend the Peruvian people for their commitment to democracy and their success in carrying out a free, fair, and peaceful election.
Fujimori will become Peru's first female president after campaigning on restoring public security, strengthening economic growth, and ending the politicalinstability that has seen Peru cycle through nine presidents in the last decade.
"Peru's election is another sign that the people of Latin America are tired of disorder, insecurity, and false promises and are demanding something increasingly simple: a government that works," said Melissa Ford Maldonado, Director of AFPI's Western Hemisphere Initiative. "President-elect Fujimori has identified a path forward for Peru focused on policies that will restore public safety, strengthen institutions, and create the conditions for long-term economic growth."
Peru's success matters not only to Peruvians, but to the future of security and stability in the Americas. As one of South America's largest nations and a key U.S. partner, Peru plays a vital role in combating transnational crime, securing critical mineral and trade corridors, and resisting the influence of hostile actors seeking to undermine sovereignty in the hemisphere. A safer, stronger, and more prosperous Peru benefits not only its own citizens, but also the broader effort to build a more secure and resilient Western Hemisphere. Stronger partnership between the United States and Peru is an important aspect of AFPI's mission to advance security, economic opportunity, and regional stability throughout the Americas.
AFPI remains committed to advancing policies that prioritize American strength abroad, deepen cooperation with democratic partners, and ensure the Western Hemisphere remains secure, free, and aligned against criminal networks and adversarial regimes.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-congratulates-peru-president-elect-keiko-fujimori
[Category: ThinkTank]
