Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Ifo Institute: Little Support For Partial Sick Leave
MUNICH, Germany, Aug. 5 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on Aug. 4, 2026:
* * *
Little Support For Partial Sick Leave
Almost half of companies do not regard it as sensible for employees to be able to take partial sick leave in the future. That's according to the latest Personnel Manager Survey by Randstad and the ifo Institute. Only about one in four companies find this option helpful, while another 25 percent are neutral about it. Partial sick leave would allow employees to work reduced hours in the event of a prolonged illness. "Most companies fear that it will be difficult ... Show Full Article MUNICH, Germany, Aug. 5 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on Aug. 4, 2026: * * * Little Support For Partial Sick Leave Almost half of companies do not regard it as sensible for employees to be able to take partial sick leave in the future. That's according to the latest Personnel Manager Survey by Randstad and the ifo Institute. Only about one in four companies find this option helpful, while another 25 percent are neutral about it. Partial sick leave would allow employees to work reduced hours in the event of a prolonged illness. "Most companies fear that it will be difficultto distinguish between able to work and unable to work," says ifo researcher Jonas Hennrich. "They also expect additional organizational effort as a result."
In the companies' view, partial sick leave is also not feasible in every business area: It is most likely to be implemented in administration (55 percent). In sales/customer service, 33 percent see it as a possible option. According to the companies, partial sick leave is not very suitable in logistics (11 percent) and production (8 percent).
Half of the companies do not expect this tool to have any significant positive effects. One-third of companies hope that this type of sick leave will result in shorter absences or a quicker return to work for sick employees. 21 percent of companies believe it is possible for sick employees to work longer despite health restrictions; 12 percent believe that, under these circumstances, more flexible personnel planning is possible.
Under the adopted regulation on partial sick leave, partial incapacity for work can be certified by a doctor in the case of prolonged illness, and employees can reduce their working hours accordingly.
* * *
2026 Article in Journal
Teilkrankschreibung auf dem Prufstand: Schafft sie Abhilfe fur steigende Auslastung der Beschaftigten?
Jonas Hennrich, Daria Schaller
ifo Schnelldienst digital, 2026, 7, Nr. 11 01-07
Learn more (https://www.ifo.de/en/publications/2026/article-journal/teilkrankschreibung-auf-dem-pruefstand)
-
21 July 2026 Randstad ifo HR Survey
Companies Under Pressure: Workload, Mental Health, and Partial Sick Leave (second quarter of 2026)
The Randstad-ifo HR Survey for the second quarter of 2026 provides insights into current negative factors for companies and the workload of their employees. It also looks more closely at the mental health of the employees. Finally, participants were asked for their opinion on the topic of partial sick leave.
Learn more (https://www.ifo.de/en/fakten/2026-07-21/unternehmen-unter-druck)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2026-08-04/little-support-partial-sick-leave
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Little Support For Partial Sick Leave
Almost half of companies do not regard it as sensible for employees to be able to take partial sick leave in the future. That's according to the latest Personnel Manager Survey by Randstad and the ifo Institute. Only about one in four companies find this option helpful, while another 25 percent are neutral about it. Partial sick leave would allow employees to work reduced hours in the event of a prolonged illness. "Most companies fear that it will be difficult ... Show Full Article MUNICH, Germany, Aug. 5 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on Aug. 4, 2026: * * * Little Support For Partial Sick Leave Almost half of companies do not regard it as sensible for employees to be able to take partial sick leave in the future. That's according to the latest Personnel Manager Survey by Randstad and the ifo Institute. Only about one in four companies find this option helpful, while another 25 percent are neutral about it. Partial sick leave would allow employees to work reduced hours in the event of a prolonged illness. "Most companies fear that it will be difficultto distinguish between able to work and unable to work," says ifo researcher Jonas Hennrich. "They also expect additional organizational effort as a result."
In the companies' view, partial sick leave is also not feasible in every business area: It is most likely to be implemented in administration (55 percent). In sales/customer service, 33 percent see it as a possible option. According to the companies, partial sick leave is not very suitable in logistics (11 percent) and production (8 percent).
Half of the companies do not expect this tool to have any significant positive effects. One-third of companies hope that this type of sick leave will result in shorter absences or a quicker return to work for sick employees. 21 percent of companies believe it is possible for sick employees to work longer despite health restrictions; 12 percent believe that, under these circumstances, more flexible personnel planning is possible.
Under the adopted regulation on partial sick leave, partial incapacity for work can be certified by a doctor in the case of prolonged illness, and employees can reduce their working hours accordingly.
* * *
2026 Article in Journal
Teilkrankschreibung auf dem Prufstand: Schafft sie Abhilfe fur steigende Auslastung der Beschaftigten?
Jonas Hennrich, Daria Schaller
ifo Schnelldienst digital, 2026, 7, Nr. 11 01-07
Learn more (https://www.ifo.de/en/publications/2026/article-journal/teilkrankschreibung-auf-dem-pruefstand)
-
21 July 2026 Randstad ifo HR Survey
Companies Under Pressure: Workload, Mental Health, and Partial Sick Leave (second quarter of 2026)
The Randstad-ifo HR Survey for the second quarter of 2026 provides insights into current negative factors for companies and the workload of their employees. It also looks more closely at the mental health of the employees. Finally, participants were asked for their opinion on the topic of partial sick leave.
Learn more (https://www.ifo.de/en/fakten/2026-07-21/unternehmen-unter-druck)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2026-08-04/little-support-partial-sick-leave
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center on Budget & Policy Priorities: Administration Policies Go Beyond 2025 Republican Reconciliation Law, Deepening Its Harm
WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 -- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued the following commenntary on Aug. 4, 2026, by Medicaid Policy Director Allison Orris and senior policy analyst Allie Gardner:
* * *
Administration Policies Go Beyond 2025 Republican Reconciliation Law, Deepening Its Harm
Our nation's policymakers play a significant role in supporting or weakening the health and well-being of their constituents through the laws they pass and the actions they take. Last year's harmful Republican reconciliation law cut more than $900 billion from Medicaid, taking coverage away from millions ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 -- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued the following commenntary on Aug. 4, 2026, by Medicaid Policy Director Allison Orris and senior policy analyst Allie Gardner: * * * Administration Policies Go Beyond 2025 Republican Reconciliation Law, Deepening Its Harm Our nation's policymakers play a significant role in supporting or weakening the health and well-being of their constituents through the laws they pass and the actions they take. Last year's harmful Republican reconciliation law cut more than $900 billion from Medicaid, taking coverage away from millionsof people, risking access to care for many others, and increasing pressure on state budgets.
Now, a series of Trump Administration actions will worsen these harms if not reconsidered and rolled back. Taken together, recent policies from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on the Medicaid work requirement and approaches that states use to finance their Medicaid programs, pay their providers, and innovate in their programs will diminish access, stifle innovation, and leave Medicaid enrollees worse off. While the best way to stop the harm of last year's reconciliation law is for Congress to reverse course, CMS should reconsider its policies -- including those that go beyond the statute -- that will deepen the harm of an already harmful law.
The following are among the Administration's Medicaid policy choices that will lead to more coverage losses, less access for enrollees, and destabilizing cuts for providers.
The work requirement interim final rule further jeopardizes health coverage for people with serious medical needs. The harmful 2025 Republican reconciliation law takes away coverage from some parents and many childless adults who can't prove that they are meeting a work requirement or are exempt. The law creates a "medical frailty" exclusion from the work requirement for people with serious illnesses, like cancer, autoimmune diseases, mental health conditions, and substance use disorders. But the Trump Administration's interim final rule implementing the requirement made major, last-minute policy shifts, including to the medical frailty exclusion, that will likely increase the number of people who are denied or lose health coverage due to the requirement. The rule also makes it harder for states to implement the work requirement by the January 2027 deadline in a manner that would better protect eligible people from losing coverage.
Capping Medicaid payment rates across the program will limit access and compound harm to enrollees and providers. CMS's proposed rule capping Medicaid managed care and fee-for-service payments goeswellbeyond the limits required by the reconciliation law. The Administration's rule proposes extending payment limits to all services covered under state directed payments (SDPs, which states use to direct Medicaid managed care organization to pay specific providers to drive access and quality); eliminating one of the methodologies states currently use to authorize SDP rate increases; extending SDP limits to U.S. Territories; and imposing the same new payment limits on certain Medicaid fee-for-service payments.
More Than $510 Billion
Estimated amount of federal Medicaid funding cut over ten years by the proposed CMS rule capping Medicaid payment rates.
Taken together, these changes -- which are more extreme in states that adopted the Medicaid expansion -- will lower payments to providers and reduce access to services for Medicaid enrollees. CMS's rule itself confirms the depth of its expanded policy: the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the SDP provisions in the reconciliation law would cut $149 billion in federal Medicaid funding over ten years, yet CMS estimates that the rule will cut federal Medicaid funding to states by more than $510 billion over the next ten years.
There are guardrails for SDPs and other supplemental payments that could be implemented to balance advancing access to care for enrollees and fiscal and program integrity. However, the proposed rule does not achieve this balance. Instead, it severely hamstrings states' flexibility and disregards the reduction in access to services for Medicaid enrollees in favor of continuing the 2025 law's ultimate goal of cutting federal Medicaid funding.
Proposed provider tax rule will increase state budget hardships and put enrollees' coverage and access at risk. Another proposed rule from CMS places restrictions beyond what the reconciliation law requires on health care-related provider taxes. Almost all states have used provider taxes to help finance the state share of Medicaid costs, consistent with federal guardrails. Provider taxes support efforts to expand eligibility and increase provider reimbursement to improve access to care.
Last year's law prohibited states from implementing any new provider taxes (or increases to existing taxes) after July 4, 2025, and changed long-standing federal rules guiding states' use of provider taxes. The proposed rule expands the new provider tax requirements to taxes on other health-care related entities like health insurers -- limiting state options to raise revenue to fund Medicaid. It also enhances threats to states' federal Medicaid funding, especially with the new methodology that would be required to calculate that existing taxes fall within the law's statutory limits.
More Than $245 billion
Estimated amount of federal Medicaid funding cut over ten years by the proposed CMS rule limiting provider taxes
CMS estimates the rule will cut federal Medicaid funding by more than $245 billion over the next decade, compared to CBO projections that the reconciliation law's provider tax restrictions would cut federal Medicaid funding by $191 billion. However, CMS's estimate does not account for the full impact of its proposal since it excludes the impact on state budgets from extending the limits to new taxes. The rule will further restrict states' ability to respond to rising health care costs or economic crises; hamper state budgets; and potentially require states to make tough choices that affect enrollees' access to care, like cutting provider reimbursement (including through eliminating SDPs) and coverage of optional benefits, as CMS notes in its analysis.
New policy on section 1115 demonstrations will stifle innovation and limit states' ability to implement or continue certain policies. Ahead of a rule planned for later this year, CMS released guidance for state Medicaid agencies about how it will apply the 2025 reconciliation law's standards for budget neutrality. Here, too, the Administration's approach is more sweeping than the law requires. The approach to assessing budget neutrality in the guidance will add significant administrative burdens for states and put funding for coverage and benefit expansions and service delivery innovations at risk. Because many states use section 1115 demonstrations for some or most of their Medicaid programs, almost every state will be affected by these changes. At the same time, state Medicaid agencies are implementing myriad other burdensome requirements from the harmful 2025 law.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cbpp.org/blog/administration-policies-go-beyond-2025-republican-reconciliation-law-deepening-its-harm
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Administration Policies Go Beyond 2025 Republican Reconciliation Law, Deepening Its Harm
Our nation's policymakers play a significant role in supporting or weakening the health and well-being of their constituents through the laws they pass and the actions they take. Last year's harmful Republican reconciliation law cut more than $900 billion from Medicaid, taking coverage away from millions ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 -- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued the following commenntary on Aug. 4, 2026, by Medicaid Policy Director Allison Orris and senior policy analyst Allie Gardner: * * * Administration Policies Go Beyond 2025 Republican Reconciliation Law, Deepening Its Harm Our nation's policymakers play a significant role in supporting or weakening the health and well-being of their constituents through the laws they pass and the actions they take. Last year's harmful Republican reconciliation law cut more than $900 billion from Medicaid, taking coverage away from millionsof people, risking access to care for many others, and increasing pressure on state budgets.
Now, a series of Trump Administration actions will worsen these harms if not reconsidered and rolled back. Taken together, recent policies from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on the Medicaid work requirement and approaches that states use to finance their Medicaid programs, pay their providers, and innovate in their programs will diminish access, stifle innovation, and leave Medicaid enrollees worse off. While the best way to stop the harm of last year's reconciliation law is for Congress to reverse course, CMS should reconsider its policies -- including those that go beyond the statute -- that will deepen the harm of an already harmful law.
The following are among the Administration's Medicaid policy choices that will lead to more coverage losses, less access for enrollees, and destabilizing cuts for providers.
The work requirement interim final rule further jeopardizes health coverage for people with serious medical needs. The harmful 2025 Republican reconciliation law takes away coverage from some parents and many childless adults who can't prove that they are meeting a work requirement or are exempt. The law creates a "medical frailty" exclusion from the work requirement for people with serious illnesses, like cancer, autoimmune diseases, mental health conditions, and substance use disorders. But the Trump Administration's interim final rule implementing the requirement made major, last-minute policy shifts, including to the medical frailty exclusion, that will likely increase the number of people who are denied or lose health coverage due to the requirement. The rule also makes it harder for states to implement the work requirement by the January 2027 deadline in a manner that would better protect eligible people from losing coverage.
Capping Medicaid payment rates across the program will limit access and compound harm to enrollees and providers. CMS's proposed rule capping Medicaid managed care and fee-for-service payments goeswellbeyond the limits required by the reconciliation law. The Administration's rule proposes extending payment limits to all services covered under state directed payments (SDPs, which states use to direct Medicaid managed care organization to pay specific providers to drive access and quality); eliminating one of the methodologies states currently use to authorize SDP rate increases; extending SDP limits to U.S. Territories; and imposing the same new payment limits on certain Medicaid fee-for-service payments.
More Than $510 Billion
Estimated amount of federal Medicaid funding cut over ten years by the proposed CMS rule capping Medicaid payment rates.
Taken together, these changes -- which are more extreme in states that adopted the Medicaid expansion -- will lower payments to providers and reduce access to services for Medicaid enrollees. CMS's rule itself confirms the depth of its expanded policy: the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the SDP provisions in the reconciliation law would cut $149 billion in federal Medicaid funding over ten years, yet CMS estimates that the rule will cut federal Medicaid funding to states by more than $510 billion over the next ten years.
There are guardrails for SDPs and other supplemental payments that could be implemented to balance advancing access to care for enrollees and fiscal and program integrity. However, the proposed rule does not achieve this balance. Instead, it severely hamstrings states' flexibility and disregards the reduction in access to services for Medicaid enrollees in favor of continuing the 2025 law's ultimate goal of cutting federal Medicaid funding.
Proposed provider tax rule will increase state budget hardships and put enrollees' coverage and access at risk. Another proposed rule from CMS places restrictions beyond what the reconciliation law requires on health care-related provider taxes. Almost all states have used provider taxes to help finance the state share of Medicaid costs, consistent with federal guardrails. Provider taxes support efforts to expand eligibility and increase provider reimbursement to improve access to care.
Last year's law prohibited states from implementing any new provider taxes (or increases to existing taxes) after July 4, 2025, and changed long-standing federal rules guiding states' use of provider taxes. The proposed rule expands the new provider tax requirements to taxes on other health-care related entities like health insurers -- limiting state options to raise revenue to fund Medicaid. It also enhances threats to states' federal Medicaid funding, especially with the new methodology that would be required to calculate that existing taxes fall within the law's statutory limits.
More Than $245 billion
Estimated amount of federal Medicaid funding cut over ten years by the proposed CMS rule limiting provider taxes
CMS estimates the rule will cut federal Medicaid funding by more than $245 billion over the next decade, compared to CBO projections that the reconciliation law's provider tax restrictions would cut federal Medicaid funding by $191 billion. However, CMS's estimate does not account for the full impact of its proposal since it excludes the impact on state budgets from extending the limits to new taxes. The rule will further restrict states' ability to respond to rising health care costs or economic crises; hamper state budgets; and potentially require states to make tough choices that affect enrollees' access to care, like cutting provider reimbursement (including through eliminating SDPs) and coverage of optional benefits, as CMS notes in its analysis.
New policy on section 1115 demonstrations will stifle innovation and limit states' ability to implement or continue certain policies. Ahead of a rule planned for later this year, CMS released guidance for state Medicaid agencies about how it will apply the 2025 reconciliation law's standards for budget neutrality. Here, too, the Administration's approach is more sweeping than the law requires. The approach to assessing budget neutrality in the guidance will add significant administrative burdens for states and put funding for coverage and benefit expansions and service delivery innovations at risk. Because many states use section 1115 demonstrations for some or most of their Medicaid programs, almost every state will be affected by these changes. At the same time, state Medicaid agencies are implementing myriad other burdensome requirements from the harmful 2025 law.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cbpp.org/blog/administration-policies-go-beyond-2025-republican-reconciliation-law-deepening-its-harm
[Category: ThinkTank]
American Action Forum Issues Commentary: Tracker - Federal Reserve's Balance Sheet Assets
WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on Aug. 3, 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, Aug. 5 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on Aug. 3, 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 July 29, the Fed's assets stand at $6.7 trillion, down $9 billion from the prior week and over $95 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
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/tracker-the-federal-reserves-balance-sheet/
[Category: Think Tank]
* * *
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, Aug. 5 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on Aug. 3, 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 July 29, the Fed's assets stand at $6.7 trillion, down $9 billion from the prior week and over $95 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
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/tracker-the-federal-reserves-balance-sheet/
[Category: Think Tank]
American Action Forum Issues Commentary: Patent Cliff and the Drug Market's Innovation Cycle
WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on Aug. 4, 2026, by Health Care Policy Director Michael Baker:
* * *
The Patent Cliff and the Drug Market's Innovation Cycle
Executive Summary
* The U.S. biopharmaceutical market has strong, structural incentives to innovate new products, anchored by robust intellectual property (IP) protections; these IP protections, however, can occasionally create windows where patent exclusivity expires at the same time, colloquially called a "patent cliff."
* The "cliff" is not itself a structural problem but drives necessary ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on Aug. 4, 2026, by Health Care Policy Director Michael Baker: * * * The Patent Cliff and the Drug Market's Innovation Cycle Executive Summary * The U.S. biopharmaceutical market has strong, structural incentives to innovate new products, anchored by robust intellectual property (IP) protections; these IP protections, however, can occasionally create windows where patent exclusivity expires at the same time, colloquially called a "patent cliff." * The "cliff" is not itself a structural problem but drives necessarydecision-making in the pharmaceutical industry about where the next innovative product comes from, including mergers and acquisitions, in- and out-licensing of products, and research and development priorities.
* It is important to understand what the "patent cliff" is and how it acts within the biopharmaceutical market to incentivize innovation and maintain the development of next-generation therapeutics; policies that compress innovation incentives and increase costs - such as federal price-setting, overly broad prohibitions on deal-making, and tariffs - should be avoided to allow market forces to efficiently allocate resources and bring new therapies to market.
-
Introduction
The "patent cliff" is a familiar feature of the biopharmaceutical market, but its policy significance is often oversimplified. At its core, the term refers to the sharp revenue erosion that can occur when high-selling branded drugs lose market exclusivity and become open to generic or biosimilar competition. For the health care system, that transition is both a source of savings and an event horizon to inspire and identify the next sources of innovation.
This dynamic reflects the basic bargain at the center of U.S. pharmaceutical policy. The market provides a period of patent protection and time-limited exclusivity to support investment in discovery, clinical development, regulatory approval, manufacturing scale-up, and commercialization. Once that protection expires, lower cost competitors are intended to enter the market, bringing down prices. The Hatch-Waxman Act, passed in 1984, established the modern generic drug framework for small-molecule drugs, and the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act from 2009 created the analogous pathway for biosimilars. Together, these processes reflect the basic mechanics of U.S. pharmaceutical policy: Incentivize and reward innovation for a defined period, then promote competition to generate system-wide savings.
The challenge is that this transition can create significant pressure when several major products lose exclusivity in a compressed period. A single loss-of-exclusivity event may be manageable through lifecycle planning or a successful new launch. A broader patent cliff creates a more difficult portfolio problem: Companies must replace maturing revenue quickly enough to sustain research and development (R&D) investment, support late-stage development, maintain manufacturing and commercial capacity, and continue financing the next generation of therapies.
That replacement will not come from one source. Manufacturers rely on internal R&D, new indications, follow-on products, U.S.-based mergers and acquisitions (M&A), licensing agreements, co-development partnerships, and innovation outside the United States (ex-U.S.). China's growing role in global biopharmaceutical licensing is relevant to this discussion, but it is not the organizing principle. It is one example of a broader reality. As the patent cliff increases pressure to refill pipelines, companies will look for credible replacement assets wherever promising science is being produced.
The policy stakes are therefore larger than any one company's revenue forecast. The United States should welcome post-exclusivity competition because it is one of the health care system's most important affordability mechanisms. But policymakers should avoid undermining the innovation cycle that begets that competition. Current policy trajectories have centered on pre-loss-of-exclusivity price setting, overbroad restrictions on legitimate dealmaking, including from ex-U.S. sources such as China, tariffs that raise supply-chain costs, and national security policies that fail to distinguish real risks from ordinary therapeutic development. A serious patent cliff strategy should also preserve competition after exclusivity while protecting the conditions that allow new medicines to be financed, developed, acquired, manufactured, and delivered to patients.
The Patent Cliff
In the biopharmaceutical industry, a "patent cliff" refers to the concentrated loss of revenue that occurs when major branded products lose market exclusivity and become open to generic or biosimilar competition. The phrase is often used as shorthand for patent expiration, but the commercial concept is broader. A drug product's effective exclusivity can depend on a mix of patent protection, Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-administered regulatory exclusivity, biologic reference-product exclusivity, patent litigation, and the practical timing of generic or biosimilar launch.
For that reason, industry analysts often discuss the patent cliff through the lens of "loss of exclusivity," or LOE. LOE is the commercially relevant event: the point at which lower-cost competitors can enter the market in a way that materially changes the originator product's pricing power, market share, or both. A product may have multiple patents, staggered patent expirations, pending litigation, or formulation and method-of-use claims that complicate the exact timing. From a business perspective, however, the key question is when the product's protected revenue stream becomes contestable.
The "cliff" language reflects the fact that revenue erosion can be abrupt. Small-molecule drugs often face faster and steeper declines once multiple generic competitors enter, because pharmacy substitution and payer formulary management can shift volume quickly. Biologics may erode differently because biosimilars are more difficult to manufacture, switching dynamics are more complicated, and payer incentives can vary by site of care and channel. Still, the core concern is the same: A product that previously generated durable branded revenue can move into a materially lower revenue phase once meaningful competition arrives.
The patent cliff is therefore discussed at both the product level and the portfolio level. At the product level, LOE changes the economics of a specific franchise. At the portfolio level, a patent cliff emerges when several large products face LOE in a compressed period, creating a revenue-replacement problem for a company or for the sector as a whole.
Why the Patent Cliff Matters
The patent cliff produces two effects at once. The first is positive: Post-exclusivity competition lowers prices and thus reduces spending. Once generic or biosimilar competitors enter the market, the originator product generally loses market share, payers gain leverage, and net prices decline. For patients, the real effect depends on benefit design and formulary placement, but the system-level impacts are clear. Generic and biosimilar competition is one of the few proven mechanisms for reducing drug costs without relying on government price-setting.
The savings are substantial. Generic and biosimilar medicines are estimated to have saved the U.S. health care system $467 billion in 2024 and $3.4 trillion over the prior decade. Biosimilars alone were estimated to have generated $20.2 billion in savings in 2024 and $56.2 billion since the first U.S. biosimilar launch in 2015. Those figures should be understood in context, but they underscore the basic point: The patent cliff is not a market failure. It is one of the primary ways the prescription drug market converts earlier innovation into later affordability.
The second effect is more difficult: The same event creates a revenue-replacement problem. Why does this matter? A successful drug finances not only its own lifecycle but also broader R&D portfolios, late-stage trials, manufacturing investment, business development, and commercial infrastructure. When that revenue declines sharply, companies must replace it through new product launches, expanded indications, lifecycle management, or external transactions.
Pharmaceutical R&D is capital-intensive, long-cycle, and failure-prone. The Congressional Budget Office has described expected global revenues, development costs, and federal policy as key factors influencing drug-company R&D decisions, and it has also noted that policies lowering drug prices and federal spending would probably reduce incentives to develop new drugs. That does not mean every dollar of branded-drug revenue is efficiently reinvested. Nor does it mean policymakers should oppose generic or biosimilar competition. But it does mean the policy discussion should distinguish between market-based competition after exclusivity and interventions that compress returns before that competitive cycle has run its course.
The current loss-of-exclusivity cycle is notable because of its scale. The most formidable LOE wave in more than a decade, patent losses at estimated net manufacturer prices are expected to exceed $90 billion from 2025 through 2029. Calculating the exposure more broadly, estimates indicate that more than $300 billion in prescription drug revenue will lose exclusivity between 2025 and 2030. Those estimates are not theoretical. They represent revenue streams that currently support commercial infrastructure, late-stage development, manufacturing investment, business development, and investor expectations.
The Pipeline-replacement Problem
The patent cliff creates a timing problem as much as a revenue problem. Companies cannot wait for exclusivity to expire before looking for replacement growth. By the time generic or biosimilar competition begins, the next wave of products must already be moving through clinical development, regulatory review, launch planning, manufacturing scale-up, and commercial adoption.
Sequencing these actions efficiently is difficult because drug development does not produce revenue on demand. A manufacturer may have a scientifically promising pipeline and still face a commercial gap if key assets fail in clinical trials, are delayed by regulatory or manufacturing issues, serve smaller patient populations, or launch too late to offset near-term loss-of-exclusivity pressure. Even successful product launches may take years to build the evidence base, payer coverage, prescriber confidence, and patient uptake needed to replace other pharmaceutical sales.
This is why the patent cliff should be understood through a portfolio-management lens. The issue is not whether one company can replace one product with one new product. It is whether companies can assemble enough credible opportunities, across enough therapeutic areas and stages of development, to sustain R&D investment, business development, manufacturing capacity, and commercialization infrastructure while older products move into competitive markets.
The larger the cliff, the more difficult that task becomes. A modest LOE event can often be managed through ordinary lifecycle planning or a successful launch. A compressed wave of major LOE events requires a broader replacement strategy. Companies need multiple shots on goal: internal candidates, new indications, follow-on products, domestic business development, international licensing, and partnerships that can move promising assets into larger development and commercialization platforms.
The patent cliff makes this bridge more important. A manufacturer facing concentrated revenue erosion needs credible pathways to replenish its pipeline before losses materialize. External transactions can accelerate that process, diversify scientific risk, and allow companies to access assets that have already cleared some early development hurdles.
The Search for Replacement Assets
Once the patent cliff is understood as a pipeline-replenishment problem, the strategic response becomes easier to evaluate. Companies facing LOE pressure are not choosing between domestic self-reliance and foreign dependence. They are assembling portfolios from multiple sources, each with different advantages and limitations: internal research, lifecycle strategies, U.S.-based biotechnology, and ex-U.S. innovation.
Internal R&D remains the foundation for most companies. It allows companies to set scientific priorities, build proprietary platforms, and pursue long-term therapeutic strategies. But internal research is slow, expensive, and uncertain, making it difficult to rely on it alone during a compressed LOE cycle.
Lifecycle management of existing products is another method of pipeline maintenance. New indications, improved formulations, dose-delivery innovations, fixed-dose combinations, and follow-on products can build on the clinical and commercial value of existing franchises. These strategies are especially important to producing meaningful patient benefits, but these are naturally limited to those with scientific support - not all products can be extended through follow-on indications and products.
External innovation is therefore central to managing the cliff. U.S.-based M&A, asset acquisitions, licensing agreements, co-development partnerships, option-to-acquire structures, regional rights deals, and platform collaborations allow companies to access assets that may already have cleared early scientific or clinical hurdles. These transactions are not merely financial maneuvers. They are a part of how the biopharmaceutical ecosystem functions, transferring promising science from smaller developers into organizations with late-stage development, regulatory, manufacturing, payer, and commercial scale.
That external search is increasingly global. Attractive assets can emerge from U.S. biotechnology firms, European developers, Japanese and South Korean companies, academic spinouts, and other mature life sciences markets. These opportunities can serve the same function as U.S.-based external innovation: They expand the universe of possible pipeline additions, diversify scientific risk, and allow manufacturers to access programs that have already cleared some early development hurdles.
China fits within this broader category. Its biopharmaceutical ecosystem has become a more prominent source of licensable assets, particularly in oncology, antibody-drug conjugates, bispecific antibodies, immunology, and metabolic disease. Industry and financial reporting show a marked increase in China-origin licensing activity, including significant growth in deal values as multinational companies search for experimental medicines amid patent-expiration pressure. Greater China licensing deal values rose nearly tenfold from 2021 to $137.7 billion in 2025, with further growth expected in 2026 as multinational firms look for experimental medicines amid patent-expiration pressure. That does not make the patent cliff a China story. It makes China one example of a broader strategic reality: When companies face major revenue erosion, they look for replacement assets wherever credible science is being produced.
Some opportunities will be domestic. Some will come from traditional allied markets. Some will come from China. The relevant policy question is whether U.S. firms retain the flexibility to pursue legitimate acquisition, licensing, and development strategies that strengthen their portfolios. A molecule discovered abroad can still generate substantial U.S. value. It can be developed through U.S.-led clinical trials, reviewed by FDA, manufactured in the United States or allied markets, commercialized by a U.S.-based company, and made available to U.S. patients. Properly structured, external sourcing can help U.S. companies capture and scale global science rather than surrender it to competitors.
The Policy Stakes
Understanding the U.S. pharmaceutical market through the lens of the patent cliff and pipeline replacement economics should clarify the ongoing drug-pricing debate; it demonstrates that branded-drug revenue is temporary by design. The U.S. market has a built-in mechanism for moving products from protected revenue to price competition: time-limited exclusivity followed by generic or biosimilar entry. Once that protection ends, competitors can shift market share, reduce prices, and generate savings for patients and payers.
Federal policy has trended toward undermining that mechanism, however, and creates inefficient incentives that materially impact the necessary pipeline replacement. Price-setting policies compress expected returns during the protected period. Trade policy can raise manufacturing and supply-chain costs. National security legislation can restrict the contracting, investment, licensing, and partnership pathways companies use to develop or acquire new assets. In total, these policies risk making the patent cliff harder to manage at precisely the moment companies need more flexibility to refill pipelines.
The Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program is the most direct example of pre-exclusivity revenue compression. Despite its name, the program is not a conventional negotiation between equal market participants. It is an administrative price-setting regime backed by severe penalties for noncompliance. For selected products, federally imposed prices can take effect nine years after approval for small-molecule drugs and 13 years after approval for biologics, before generic or biosimilar competition would otherwise discipline the market. That shortens the economic value of the protected period before the traditional market-based exclusivity cycle has fully run its course.
That timing is particularly damaging in the context of the current patent cliff. The sector is already facing a major LOE wave that will reduce revenue from some of the world's most important medicines. Price setting squeezes from the front end while generic and biosimilar competition squeezes from the back end. The result is a smaller and less predictable revenue window for the products that are supposed to finance late-stage development, manufacturing scale-up, business development, and future launches.
At the same time, national security policy is increasingly reaching into the biopharmaceutical sector. The BIOSECURE Act and related proposals focus on restricting federal contracting or federally funded work involving certain biotechnology companies of concern, including Chinese-linked firms. The stated concern is not imaginary: Biotechnology can implicate sensitive health data, genetic information, supply-chain resilience, and national-security risk. But the policy design matters. If restrictions are broad or poorly targeted, they can disrupt contract research, development services, manufacturing relationships, and the operating infrastructure that many drug developers use to move assets through the pipeline.
The proposed Biotech Investment National Security Act would extend this logic further by bringing biotechnology into the outbound-investment and transaction-screening framework. The bill adds biotechnology to covered technologies under the Comprehensive Outbound Investment National Security (COINS) Act and potentially subjecting licensing, joint ventures, and certain investments involving covered foreign persons to national security review. This disrupts one of the central ways companies acquire replacement assets, share development risk, and access promising science developed outside their own labs. A policy that treats ordinary therapeutic licensing as presumptively suspect could narrow the set of tools firms use to respond to LOE pressure.
Tariffs create a related problem on the cost side. Pharmaceutical supply chains are global, and reshoring manufacturing capacity is expensive, technically complex, and time-consuming. Tariffs may be promoted to force domestic production, but they can raise input costs, complicate sourcing decisions, and increase uncertainty for companies already managing patent-cliff exposure. Whatever the stated industrial policy objective, tariffs increase costs in both the overall branded and generic markets.
The common flaw across these policies is not that policymakers are identifying irrelevant concerns. Drug affordability matters. Supply chain resilience matters. Sensitive data and national security risks matter. The flaw is that policy is moving in ways that compress the innovation window, increase operating uncertainty, and restrict pipeline-replenishment strategies without sufficient regard for how the biopharmaceutical ecosystem actually responds to LOE pressure.
The patent cliff is not an argument for insulating mature, branded products from competition. Generic and biosimilar entry after exclusivity should be encouraged. But it is an argument against layering additional policy shocks onto an already significant transition point. If companies face price setting before LOE, tariff pressure in supply chains, and broader restrictions on licensing, investment, and development partnerships, they will have fewer ways to replace cliff-exposed revenue.
That revenue loss has consequences across the innovation chain. Large manufacturers use successful products to support late-stage trials, manufacturing scale-up, commercialization, and business development. Emerging biotechnology companies depend on acquisition, licensing, and partnership interest from larger firms. Investors evaluate early-stage risk against the possibility that a successful product will generate sufficient returns. When policy reduces the value of success and narrows the pathways for external innovation, it changes decisions well before any individual product loses exclusivity.
The policy stakes, then, are not limited to drug prices today. They extend to whether the United States can maintain the conditions necessary to finance, develop, acquire, manufacture, and commercialize tomorrow's therapies. The patent cliff already moves older medicines into competitive markets. Policymakers should make that transition work better, not make it harder for companies to refill the pipeline that comes next.
Policy Recommendations
A serious patent cliff strategy should preserve the full set of tools companies use to replenish pipelines while maintaining the post-exclusivity competition that generates savings for patients and payers. Policymakers should not treat the cliff as a reason to weaken the innovation environment, restrict legitimate dealmaking, or layer additional uncertainty onto an already difficult revenue transition. Instead, policy should focus on making the competitive cycle work: Reward innovation for a defined period, allow generic and biosimilar competition after exclusivity, and preserve the pathways companies use to finance and develop the next generation of therapies.
First, policymakers should strengthen post-exclusivity competition. Generic and biosimilar pathways should be predictable, efficient, and capable of producing real market entry once exclusivity has ended. That is where the affordability promise of the patent cliff is realized.
Second, policymakers should avoid pre-exclusivity price setting that weakens the reward structure before the market-based cycle has run its course. The Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program is a central example of this mistake. It imposes administrative pricing before traditional generic or biosimilar competition would otherwise occur, compressing the revenue window that supports investment and business development.
Third, policymakers should preserve legitimate acquisition and licensing pathways. Patent-cliff management depends on external innovation. Companies need flexibility to evaluate assets globally, structure transactions according to risk, and integrate promising products into larger development platforms. Restrictions that narrow the available universe of assets would make the cliff harder to manage.
Fourth, national security review should be targeted and evidence based. Transactions involving sensitive health data, genetic information, military-linked entities, critical infrastructure, or concentrated manufacturing dependence may warrant heightened scrutiny. But routine therapeutic licensing should not automatically be treated as equivalent to a supply-chain vulnerability or data-security risk. Policymakers should define the risk precisely before imposing restrictions.
Finally, the United States should strengthen its domestic innovation environment. The best way to respond to a more competitive global biopharmaceutical landscape is to make the United States the most attractive place to start, finance, test, manufacture, regulate, and commercialize biotechnology. That requires predictable FDA review, durable intellectual property protections, competitive capital markets, stable reimbursement expectations, and a policy environment that does not penalize successful innovation before the market-based exclusivity cycle has run its course.
Conclusion
The patent cliff is a predictable feature of the drug market, but the current cycle is unusually consequential. It will create important savings as generic and biosimilar competition enters the market. It will also force manufacturers to replace large amounts of maturing revenue in a compressed period.
That replacement will not come from one source. It will require internal R&D, lifecycle management, new launches, U.S.-based acquisitions, licensing agreements, ex-U.S. partnerships, and disciplined portfolio strategy. China's growing role in global licensing is relevant, but it is not the organizing principle. It is one example of how external innovation has become more global at the same time the patent cliff has made pipeline replenishment more urgent.
The central policy challenge is to preserve the innovation bargain. The United States should welcome post-exclusivity competition because it generates savings for patients and payers. But it should reject pre-exclusivity price setting and avoid policies that narrow the tools companies need to refill pipelines. The goal should be a system that makes older medicines more affordable while ensuring that tomorrow's therapies are still developed, financed, manufactured, and made available to patients.
* * *
Michael Baker is the Director of Health Care Policy at the American Action Forum
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/the-patent-cliff-and-the-drug-markets-innovation-cycle/
[Category: Think Tank]
* * *
The Patent Cliff and the Drug Market's Innovation Cycle
Executive Summary
* The U.S. biopharmaceutical market has strong, structural incentives to innovate new products, anchored by robust intellectual property (IP) protections; these IP protections, however, can occasionally create windows where patent exclusivity expires at the same time, colloquially called a "patent cliff."
* The "cliff" is not itself a structural problem but drives necessary ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on Aug. 4, 2026, by Health Care Policy Director Michael Baker: * * * The Patent Cliff and the Drug Market's Innovation Cycle Executive Summary * The U.S. biopharmaceutical market has strong, structural incentives to innovate new products, anchored by robust intellectual property (IP) protections; these IP protections, however, can occasionally create windows where patent exclusivity expires at the same time, colloquially called a "patent cliff." * The "cliff" is not itself a structural problem but drives necessarydecision-making in the pharmaceutical industry about where the next innovative product comes from, including mergers and acquisitions, in- and out-licensing of products, and research and development priorities.
* It is important to understand what the "patent cliff" is and how it acts within the biopharmaceutical market to incentivize innovation and maintain the development of next-generation therapeutics; policies that compress innovation incentives and increase costs - such as federal price-setting, overly broad prohibitions on deal-making, and tariffs - should be avoided to allow market forces to efficiently allocate resources and bring new therapies to market.
-
Introduction
The "patent cliff" is a familiar feature of the biopharmaceutical market, but its policy significance is often oversimplified. At its core, the term refers to the sharp revenue erosion that can occur when high-selling branded drugs lose market exclusivity and become open to generic or biosimilar competition. For the health care system, that transition is both a source of savings and an event horizon to inspire and identify the next sources of innovation.
This dynamic reflects the basic bargain at the center of U.S. pharmaceutical policy. The market provides a period of patent protection and time-limited exclusivity to support investment in discovery, clinical development, regulatory approval, manufacturing scale-up, and commercialization. Once that protection expires, lower cost competitors are intended to enter the market, bringing down prices. The Hatch-Waxman Act, passed in 1984, established the modern generic drug framework for small-molecule drugs, and the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act from 2009 created the analogous pathway for biosimilars. Together, these processes reflect the basic mechanics of U.S. pharmaceutical policy: Incentivize and reward innovation for a defined period, then promote competition to generate system-wide savings.
The challenge is that this transition can create significant pressure when several major products lose exclusivity in a compressed period. A single loss-of-exclusivity event may be manageable through lifecycle planning or a successful new launch. A broader patent cliff creates a more difficult portfolio problem: Companies must replace maturing revenue quickly enough to sustain research and development (R&D) investment, support late-stage development, maintain manufacturing and commercial capacity, and continue financing the next generation of therapies.
That replacement will not come from one source. Manufacturers rely on internal R&D, new indications, follow-on products, U.S.-based mergers and acquisitions (M&A), licensing agreements, co-development partnerships, and innovation outside the United States (ex-U.S.). China's growing role in global biopharmaceutical licensing is relevant to this discussion, but it is not the organizing principle. It is one example of a broader reality. As the patent cliff increases pressure to refill pipelines, companies will look for credible replacement assets wherever promising science is being produced.
The policy stakes are therefore larger than any one company's revenue forecast. The United States should welcome post-exclusivity competition because it is one of the health care system's most important affordability mechanisms. But policymakers should avoid undermining the innovation cycle that begets that competition. Current policy trajectories have centered on pre-loss-of-exclusivity price setting, overbroad restrictions on legitimate dealmaking, including from ex-U.S. sources such as China, tariffs that raise supply-chain costs, and national security policies that fail to distinguish real risks from ordinary therapeutic development. A serious patent cliff strategy should also preserve competition after exclusivity while protecting the conditions that allow new medicines to be financed, developed, acquired, manufactured, and delivered to patients.
The Patent Cliff
In the biopharmaceutical industry, a "patent cliff" refers to the concentrated loss of revenue that occurs when major branded products lose market exclusivity and become open to generic or biosimilar competition. The phrase is often used as shorthand for patent expiration, but the commercial concept is broader. A drug product's effective exclusivity can depend on a mix of patent protection, Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-administered regulatory exclusivity, biologic reference-product exclusivity, patent litigation, and the practical timing of generic or biosimilar launch.
For that reason, industry analysts often discuss the patent cliff through the lens of "loss of exclusivity," or LOE. LOE is the commercially relevant event: the point at which lower-cost competitors can enter the market in a way that materially changes the originator product's pricing power, market share, or both. A product may have multiple patents, staggered patent expirations, pending litigation, or formulation and method-of-use claims that complicate the exact timing. From a business perspective, however, the key question is when the product's protected revenue stream becomes contestable.
The "cliff" language reflects the fact that revenue erosion can be abrupt. Small-molecule drugs often face faster and steeper declines once multiple generic competitors enter, because pharmacy substitution and payer formulary management can shift volume quickly. Biologics may erode differently because biosimilars are more difficult to manufacture, switching dynamics are more complicated, and payer incentives can vary by site of care and channel. Still, the core concern is the same: A product that previously generated durable branded revenue can move into a materially lower revenue phase once meaningful competition arrives.
The patent cliff is therefore discussed at both the product level and the portfolio level. At the product level, LOE changes the economics of a specific franchise. At the portfolio level, a patent cliff emerges when several large products face LOE in a compressed period, creating a revenue-replacement problem for a company or for the sector as a whole.
Why the Patent Cliff Matters
The patent cliff produces two effects at once. The first is positive: Post-exclusivity competition lowers prices and thus reduces spending. Once generic or biosimilar competitors enter the market, the originator product generally loses market share, payers gain leverage, and net prices decline. For patients, the real effect depends on benefit design and formulary placement, but the system-level impacts are clear. Generic and biosimilar competition is one of the few proven mechanisms for reducing drug costs without relying on government price-setting.
The savings are substantial. Generic and biosimilar medicines are estimated to have saved the U.S. health care system $467 billion in 2024 and $3.4 trillion over the prior decade. Biosimilars alone were estimated to have generated $20.2 billion in savings in 2024 and $56.2 billion since the first U.S. biosimilar launch in 2015. Those figures should be understood in context, but they underscore the basic point: The patent cliff is not a market failure. It is one of the primary ways the prescription drug market converts earlier innovation into later affordability.
The second effect is more difficult: The same event creates a revenue-replacement problem. Why does this matter? A successful drug finances not only its own lifecycle but also broader R&D portfolios, late-stage trials, manufacturing investment, business development, and commercial infrastructure. When that revenue declines sharply, companies must replace it through new product launches, expanded indications, lifecycle management, or external transactions.
Pharmaceutical R&D is capital-intensive, long-cycle, and failure-prone. The Congressional Budget Office has described expected global revenues, development costs, and federal policy as key factors influencing drug-company R&D decisions, and it has also noted that policies lowering drug prices and federal spending would probably reduce incentives to develop new drugs. That does not mean every dollar of branded-drug revenue is efficiently reinvested. Nor does it mean policymakers should oppose generic or biosimilar competition. But it does mean the policy discussion should distinguish between market-based competition after exclusivity and interventions that compress returns before that competitive cycle has run its course.
The current loss-of-exclusivity cycle is notable because of its scale. The most formidable LOE wave in more than a decade, patent losses at estimated net manufacturer prices are expected to exceed $90 billion from 2025 through 2029. Calculating the exposure more broadly, estimates indicate that more than $300 billion in prescription drug revenue will lose exclusivity between 2025 and 2030. Those estimates are not theoretical. They represent revenue streams that currently support commercial infrastructure, late-stage development, manufacturing investment, business development, and investor expectations.
The Pipeline-replacement Problem
The patent cliff creates a timing problem as much as a revenue problem. Companies cannot wait for exclusivity to expire before looking for replacement growth. By the time generic or biosimilar competition begins, the next wave of products must already be moving through clinical development, regulatory review, launch planning, manufacturing scale-up, and commercial adoption.
Sequencing these actions efficiently is difficult because drug development does not produce revenue on demand. A manufacturer may have a scientifically promising pipeline and still face a commercial gap if key assets fail in clinical trials, are delayed by regulatory or manufacturing issues, serve smaller patient populations, or launch too late to offset near-term loss-of-exclusivity pressure. Even successful product launches may take years to build the evidence base, payer coverage, prescriber confidence, and patient uptake needed to replace other pharmaceutical sales.
This is why the patent cliff should be understood through a portfolio-management lens. The issue is not whether one company can replace one product with one new product. It is whether companies can assemble enough credible opportunities, across enough therapeutic areas and stages of development, to sustain R&D investment, business development, manufacturing capacity, and commercialization infrastructure while older products move into competitive markets.
The larger the cliff, the more difficult that task becomes. A modest LOE event can often be managed through ordinary lifecycle planning or a successful launch. A compressed wave of major LOE events requires a broader replacement strategy. Companies need multiple shots on goal: internal candidates, new indications, follow-on products, domestic business development, international licensing, and partnerships that can move promising assets into larger development and commercialization platforms.
The patent cliff makes this bridge more important. A manufacturer facing concentrated revenue erosion needs credible pathways to replenish its pipeline before losses materialize. External transactions can accelerate that process, diversify scientific risk, and allow companies to access assets that have already cleared some early development hurdles.
The Search for Replacement Assets
Once the patent cliff is understood as a pipeline-replenishment problem, the strategic response becomes easier to evaluate. Companies facing LOE pressure are not choosing between domestic self-reliance and foreign dependence. They are assembling portfolios from multiple sources, each with different advantages and limitations: internal research, lifecycle strategies, U.S.-based biotechnology, and ex-U.S. innovation.
Internal R&D remains the foundation for most companies. It allows companies to set scientific priorities, build proprietary platforms, and pursue long-term therapeutic strategies. But internal research is slow, expensive, and uncertain, making it difficult to rely on it alone during a compressed LOE cycle.
Lifecycle management of existing products is another method of pipeline maintenance. New indications, improved formulations, dose-delivery innovations, fixed-dose combinations, and follow-on products can build on the clinical and commercial value of existing franchises. These strategies are especially important to producing meaningful patient benefits, but these are naturally limited to those with scientific support - not all products can be extended through follow-on indications and products.
External innovation is therefore central to managing the cliff. U.S.-based M&A, asset acquisitions, licensing agreements, co-development partnerships, option-to-acquire structures, regional rights deals, and platform collaborations allow companies to access assets that may already have cleared early scientific or clinical hurdles. These transactions are not merely financial maneuvers. They are a part of how the biopharmaceutical ecosystem functions, transferring promising science from smaller developers into organizations with late-stage development, regulatory, manufacturing, payer, and commercial scale.
That external search is increasingly global. Attractive assets can emerge from U.S. biotechnology firms, European developers, Japanese and South Korean companies, academic spinouts, and other mature life sciences markets. These opportunities can serve the same function as U.S.-based external innovation: They expand the universe of possible pipeline additions, diversify scientific risk, and allow manufacturers to access programs that have already cleared some early development hurdles.
China fits within this broader category. Its biopharmaceutical ecosystem has become a more prominent source of licensable assets, particularly in oncology, antibody-drug conjugates, bispecific antibodies, immunology, and metabolic disease. Industry and financial reporting show a marked increase in China-origin licensing activity, including significant growth in deal values as multinational companies search for experimental medicines amid patent-expiration pressure. Greater China licensing deal values rose nearly tenfold from 2021 to $137.7 billion in 2025, with further growth expected in 2026 as multinational firms look for experimental medicines amid patent-expiration pressure. That does not make the patent cliff a China story. It makes China one example of a broader strategic reality: When companies face major revenue erosion, they look for replacement assets wherever credible science is being produced.
Some opportunities will be domestic. Some will come from traditional allied markets. Some will come from China. The relevant policy question is whether U.S. firms retain the flexibility to pursue legitimate acquisition, licensing, and development strategies that strengthen their portfolios. A molecule discovered abroad can still generate substantial U.S. value. It can be developed through U.S.-led clinical trials, reviewed by FDA, manufactured in the United States or allied markets, commercialized by a U.S.-based company, and made available to U.S. patients. Properly structured, external sourcing can help U.S. companies capture and scale global science rather than surrender it to competitors.
The Policy Stakes
Understanding the U.S. pharmaceutical market through the lens of the patent cliff and pipeline replacement economics should clarify the ongoing drug-pricing debate; it demonstrates that branded-drug revenue is temporary by design. The U.S. market has a built-in mechanism for moving products from protected revenue to price competition: time-limited exclusivity followed by generic or biosimilar entry. Once that protection ends, competitors can shift market share, reduce prices, and generate savings for patients and payers.
Federal policy has trended toward undermining that mechanism, however, and creates inefficient incentives that materially impact the necessary pipeline replacement. Price-setting policies compress expected returns during the protected period. Trade policy can raise manufacturing and supply-chain costs. National security legislation can restrict the contracting, investment, licensing, and partnership pathways companies use to develop or acquire new assets. In total, these policies risk making the patent cliff harder to manage at precisely the moment companies need more flexibility to refill pipelines.
The Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program is the most direct example of pre-exclusivity revenue compression. Despite its name, the program is not a conventional negotiation between equal market participants. It is an administrative price-setting regime backed by severe penalties for noncompliance. For selected products, federally imposed prices can take effect nine years after approval for small-molecule drugs and 13 years after approval for biologics, before generic or biosimilar competition would otherwise discipline the market. That shortens the economic value of the protected period before the traditional market-based exclusivity cycle has fully run its course.
That timing is particularly damaging in the context of the current patent cliff. The sector is already facing a major LOE wave that will reduce revenue from some of the world's most important medicines. Price setting squeezes from the front end while generic and biosimilar competition squeezes from the back end. The result is a smaller and less predictable revenue window for the products that are supposed to finance late-stage development, manufacturing scale-up, business development, and future launches.
At the same time, national security policy is increasingly reaching into the biopharmaceutical sector. The BIOSECURE Act and related proposals focus on restricting federal contracting or federally funded work involving certain biotechnology companies of concern, including Chinese-linked firms. The stated concern is not imaginary: Biotechnology can implicate sensitive health data, genetic information, supply-chain resilience, and national-security risk. But the policy design matters. If restrictions are broad or poorly targeted, they can disrupt contract research, development services, manufacturing relationships, and the operating infrastructure that many drug developers use to move assets through the pipeline.
The proposed Biotech Investment National Security Act would extend this logic further by bringing biotechnology into the outbound-investment and transaction-screening framework. The bill adds biotechnology to covered technologies under the Comprehensive Outbound Investment National Security (COINS) Act and potentially subjecting licensing, joint ventures, and certain investments involving covered foreign persons to national security review. This disrupts one of the central ways companies acquire replacement assets, share development risk, and access promising science developed outside their own labs. A policy that treats ordinary therapeutic licensing as presumptively suspect could narrow the set of tools firms use to respond to LOE pressure.
Tariffs create a related problem on the cost side. Pharmaceutical supply chains are global, and reshoring manufacturing capacity is expensive, technically complex, and time-consuming. Tariffs may be promoted to force domestic production, but they can raise input costs, complicate sourcing decisions, and increase uncertainty for companies already managing patent-cliff exposure. Whatever the stated industrial policy objective, tariffs increase costs in both the overall branded and generic markets.
The common flaw across these policies is not that policymakers are identifying irrelevant concerns. Drug affordability matters. Supply chain resilience matters. Sensitive data and national security risks matter. The flaw is that policy is moving in ways that compress the innovation window, increase operating uncertainty, and restrict pipeline-replenishment strategies without sufficient regard for how the biopharmaceutical ecosystem actually responds to LOE pressure.
The patent cliff is not an argument for insulating mature, branded products from competition. Generic and biosimilar entry after exclusivity should be encouraged. But it is an argument against layering additional policy shocks onto an already significant transition point. If companies face price setting before LOE, tariff pressure in supply chains, and broader restrictions on licensing, investment, and development partnerships, they will have fewer ways to replace cliff-exposed revenue.
That revenue loss has consequences across the innovation chain. Large manufacturers use successful products to support late-stage trials, manufacturing scale-up, commercialization, and business development. Emerging biotechnology companies depend on acquisition, licensing, and partnership interest from larger firms. Investors evaluate early-stage risk against the possibility that a successful product will generate sufficient returns. When policy reduces the value of success and narrows the pathways for external innovation, it changes decisions well before any individual product loses exclusivity.
The policy stakes, then, are not limited to drug prices today. They extend to whether the United States can maintain the conditions necessary to finance, develop, acquire, manufacture, and commercialize tomorrow's therapies. The patent cliff already moves older medicines into competitive markets. Policymakers should make that transition work better, not make it harder for companies to refill the pipeline that comes next.
Policy Recommendations
A serious patent cliff strategy should preserve the full set of tools companies use to replenish pipelines while maintaining the post-exclusivity competition that generates savings for patients and payers. Policymakers should not treat the cliff as a reason to weaken the innovation environment, restrict legitimate dealmaking, or layer additional uncertainty onto an already difficult revenue transition. Instead, policy should focus on making the competitive cycle work: Reward innovation for a defined period, allow generic and biosimilar competition after exclusivity, and preserve the pathways companies use to finance and develop the next generation of therapies.
First, policymakers should strengthen post-exclusivity competition. Generic and biosimilar pathways should be predictable, efficient, and capable of producing real market entry once exclusivity has ended. That is where the affordability promise of the patent cliff is realized.
Second, policymakers should avoid pre-exclusivity price setting that weakens the reward structure before the market-based cycle has run its course. The Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program is a central example of this mistake. It imposes administrative pricing before traditional generic or biosimilar competition would otherwise occur, compressing the revenue window that supports investment and business development.
Third, policymakers should preserve legitimate acquisition and licensing pathways. Patent-cliff management depends on external innovation. Companies need flexibility to evaluate assets globally, structure transactions according to risk, and integrate promising products into larger development platforms. Restrictions that narrow the available universe of assets would make the cliff harder to manage.
Fourth, national security review should be targeted and evidence based. Transactions involving sensitive health data, genetic information, military-linked entities, critical infrastructure, or concentrated manufacturing dependence may warrant heightened scrutiny. But routine therapeutic licensing should not automatically be treated as equivalent to a supply-chain vulnerability or data-security risk. Policymakers should define the risk precisely before imposing restrictions.
Finally, the United States should strengthen its domestic innovation environment. The best way to respond to a more competitive global biopharmaceutical landscape is to make the United States the most attractive place to start, finance, test, manufacture, regulate, and commercialize biotechnology. That requires predictable FDA review, durable intellectual property protections, competitive capital markets, stable reimbursement expectations, and a policy environment that does not penalize successful innovation before the market-based exclusivity cycle has run its course.
Conclusion
The patent cliff is a predictable feature of the drug market, but the current cycle is unusually consequential. It will create important savings as generic and biosimilar competition enters the market. It will also force manufacturers to replace large amounts of maturing revenue in a compressed period.
That replacement will not come from one source. It will require internal R&D, lifecycle management, new launches, U.S.-based acquisitions, licensing agreements, ex-U.S. partnerships, and disciplined portfolio strategy. China's growing role in global licensing is relevant, but it is not the organizing principle. It is one example of how external innovation has become more global at the same time the patent cliff has made pipeline replenishment more urgent.
The central policy challenge is to preserve the innovation bargain. The United States should welcome post-exclusivity competition because it generates savings for patients and payers. But it should reject pre-exclusivity price setting and avoid policies that narrow the tools companies need to refill pipelines. The goal should be a system that makes older medicines more affordable while ensuring that tomorrow's therapies are still developed, financed, manufactured, and made available to patients.
* * *
Michael Baker is the Director of Health Care Policy at the American Action Forum
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/the-patent-cliff-and-the-drug-markets-innovation-cycle/
[Category: Think Tank]
America First Policy Institute: Penn State Shakeup Underscores Need to End Ideological Indoctrination in Law Schools
WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on Aug. 3, 2026:
* * *
Penn State Shakeup Underscores Need to End Ideological Indoctrination in Law Schools
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) issued the following statement from Chief Legal Affairs Officer Leigh Ann O'Neill after Penn State announced that Danielle Conway would immediately step down as dean of Penn State Dickinson Law and return to the faculty:
"Under Conway's leadership, first-year students were required to take 'Race and the Equal Protection of the Law,' a program that presented ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on Aug. 3, 2026: * * * Penn State Shakeup Underscores Need to End Ideological Indoctrination in Law Schools The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) issued the following statement from Chief Legal Affairs Officer Leigh Ann O'Neill after Penn State announced that Danielle Conway would immediately step down as dean of Penn State Dickinson Law and return to the faculty: "Under Conway's leadership, first-year students were required to take 'Race and the Equal Protection of the Law,' a program that presenteddeeply contested ideology about race and the criminal justice system. Penn State characterized the course as one that allowed the school to meet the American Bar Association's DEI requirements. AFPI asked the Department of Education to investigate whether the ABA Council remains fit to serve as the sole federally recognized national accreditor of Juris Doctor programs.
Future lawyers should be taught to think critically, to examine evidence, challenge assumptions, test arguments, and defend constitutional rights--not confirm to a one-sided and biased worldview. The ABA Council has now begun the process of repealing these biased standards, but the fight is not over. The Department of Education should continue examining whether legal education accreditation protects civil rights, academic rigor, and genuine viewpoint diversity."
Penn State announced that Conway's return to the faculty was effective immediately but did not state a reason for the change. In the months preceding the announcement, AFPI Legal's official legal complaint to the university and its letter to the Department of Education raised concerns with Penn State and the Department of Education regarding Dickinson Law's curriculum and the ABA's accreditation standards. A Dickinson Law student represented by AFPI also filed a complaint alleging that the school required ideological coursework and censored his response to the university community.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/penn-state-shakeup-underscores-need-to-end-ideological-indoctrination-in-law-schools
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Penn State Shakeup Underscores Need to End Ideological Indoctrination in Law Schools
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) issued the following statement from Chief Legal Affairs Officer Leigh Ann O'Neill after Penn State announced that Danielle Conway would immediately step down as dean of Penn State Dickinson Law and return to the faculty:
"Under Conway's leadership, first-year students were required to take 'Race and the Equal Protection of the Law,' a program that presented ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on Aug. 3, 2026: * * * Penn State Shakeup Underscores Need to End Ideological Indoctrination in Law Schools The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) issued the following statement from Chief Legal Affairs Officer Leigh Ann O'Neill after Penn State announced that Danielle Conway would immediately step down as dean of Penn State Dickinson Law and return to the faculty: "Under Conway's leadership, first-year students were required to take 'Race and the Equal Protection of the Law,' a program that presenteddeeply contested ideology about race and the criminal justice system. Penn State characterized the course as one that allowed the school to meet the American Bar Association's DEI requirements. AFPI asked the Department of Education to investigate whether the ABA Council remains fit to serve as the sole federally recognized national accreditor of Juris Doctor programs.
Future lawyers should be taught to think critically, to examine evidence, challenge assumptions, test arguments, and defend constitutional rights--not confirm to a one-sided and biased worldview. The ABA Council has now begun the process of repealing these biased standards, but the fight is not over. The Department of Education should continue examining whether legal education accreditation protects civil rights, academic rigor, and genuine viewpoint diversity."
Penn State announced that Conway's return to the faculty was effective immediately but did not state a reason for the change. In the months preceding the announcement, AFPI Legal's official legal complaint to the university and its letter to the Department of Education raised concerns with Penn State and the Department of Education regarding Dickinson Law's curriculum and the ABA's accreditation standards. A Dickinson Law student represented by AFPI also filed a complaint alleging that the school required ideological coursework and censored his response to the university community.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/penn-state-shakeup-underscores-need-to-end-ideological-indoctrination-in-law-schools
[Category: ThinkTank]
America First Policy Institute: Michigan - Great American Comeback
WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following fact sheet:
* * *
MICHIGAN: THE GREAT AMERICAN COMEBACK
The Economy: The Working Families Tax Cuts Land Where America Builds Its Cars
The Working Families Tax Cuts (WFTC)--enacted as the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) and signed July 4, 2025--deliver what supporters call the largest federal tax relief for working families in a generation, and their provisions matter most in auto states: permanent 100% expensing for factories and equipment, plus a new deduction for interest on loans for U.S.-assembled vehicles--the ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following fact sheet: * * * MICHIGAN: THE GREAT AMERICAN COMEBACK The Economy: The Working Families Tax Cuts Land Where America Builds Its Cars The Working Families Tax Cuts (WFTC)--enacted as the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) and signed July 4, 2025--deliver what supporters call the largest federal tax relief for working families in a generation, and their provisions matter most in auto states: permanent 100% expensing for factories and equipment, plus a new deduction for interest on loans for U.S.-assembled vehicles--thevehicles the Lansing region builds. The America First Policy Institute's (AFPI) Office for Fiscal and Regulatory Analysis (OFRA) estimates the law's new worker-focused provisions alone save mid-Michigan's biggest beneficiaries--joint filers with two or more children--an average of $2,162 for tax year 2025 (AFPI, OFRA, 2026b).
* * *
Figure 1. Estimated Average Working Families Tax Cuts Savings by Household Type, Michigan's 7th Congressional District, Tax Year 2025.
* * *
* Cadillac is committed to Lansing: In October 2025, General Motors (GM) confirmed the next-generation Cadillac CT5--a gas-powered sedan--will be built at Lansing Grand River Assembly, and said it is moving ahead with the $1.25 billion investment it first committed in 2023, funding a state-of-the-art paint shop transformation, new conveyors, and upgraded welding and control systems (GM Authority, 2025; WKZO, 2025). Lansing Grand River and GM's Lansing Delta Township plant in Eaton County anchor the district's manufacturing base.
* More gas-powered vehicles are coming back to Michigan: GM said in June 2025 it is investing about $4 billion in its U.S. plants--including Orion Assembly in nearby Oakland County, which will begin building gas-powered full-size SUVs and light-duty pickups in early 2027 (General Motors, 2025).
* Federal reform: The WFTC delivers no tax on tips (up to $25,000), no tax on overtime (up to $12,500/$25,000 joint), a $2,200 Child Tax Credit, a new $6,000 senior deduction, and a deduction of up to $10,000 in car-loan interest on U.S.-assembled vehicles (Internal Revenue Service [IRS], 2025, 2026a). The Tax Foundation estimates the average Michigan filer saves $3,131 in 2026 (Tax Foundation, 2026)--and the relief looms even larger as a share of taxes owed: the average filer in the median state keeps about 15.8% of what they would otherwise pay (Brashers & O'Quinn, 2025).
* AFPI has modeled the WFTC district by district: The new worker-focused provisions alone--one slice of the broader $3,131 full-bill average, which also counts permanence of the 2017 tax cuts and business provisions--save the average 7th District filer $878 for tax year 2025, more than the $765 statewide average, rising to $1,404 for families with children, $2,162 for joint filers with two or more children, and $1,153 for seniors. A Lansing-area nurse who works overtime keeps an estimated $2,159--about 76% more than the $1,227 a similar nurse saves in Illinois at a nearly identical wage (AFPI, OFRA, 2026a, 2026b, 2026c).
* Incomes are rising--and the job market needs the OBBB's factory boost: Per capita personal income reached $66,556 in 2025, up 4.1% before inflation (Bureau of Economic Analysis [BEA], 2026a). Michigan's unemployment rate stood at 5.0% in June 2026--a slight monthly downtick that came as the state's labor force shrank--but it still runs above the U.S. rate of 4.2%--roughly the same gap as at the close of the Biden Administration, when Michigan stood at 5.0% against a national 4.1% in December 2024 (Michigan Department of Technology, Management & Budget [DTMB], 2025, 2026; Michigan Public, 2026a; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2026). Closing that gap is exactly what the OBBB's permanent 100% expensing for factories, equipment, and research is for--AFPI's analysis finds it adds an expected 1.2% to long-run GDP (AFPI, 2025b).
* Paychecks stretch further in Michigan: Overall prices run about 3.8% below the national average--with rents about 17.7% lower (2024 data) (BEA, 2026b, 2026c). Stack thousands of dollars in federal tax relief on below-average prices, and affordability becomes a mid-Michigan advantage.
Energy: America's First Nuclear Plant Restart Is Happening in Michigan
President Trump's Executive Orders 14154 (Unleashing American Energy) and 14156 (Declaring a National Energy Emergency) put reliable, affordable energy back at the center of federal policy, and Executive Order 14302 (Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base) directs an American nuclear renaissance (Exec. Order No. 14154, 2025; Exec. Order No. 14156, 2025; Exec. Order No. 14302, 2025). Michigan hosts that renaissance's signature project--the federally backed restart of the Palisades nuclear plant on Lake Michigan--on top of the Nation's largest natural gas storage network.
* History is being made at Palisades: Holtec International's 800-megawatt (MW) Palisades plant in Covert Township is, in the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) words, "America's first restart of a commercial nuclear reactor in decommissioning." DOE has disbursed nearly half a billion dollars of a federal loan guarantee of up to $1.52 billion, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has approved the licensing actions returning the plant from decommissioning status to operations (DOE, 2025). In July 2026, Holtec closed out the last major restart projects and shifted to final testing and readiness work ahead of fuel load--and although no firm restart date has been announced, the plant's power is under contract by March 2027 (Holtec International, 2026; American Nuclear Society, 2026b).
* The next wave is already filed: Holtec plans two of its SMR-300 small modular reactors at the Palisades site, submitting the first part of a construction permit application on December 31, 2025; the NRC accepted it for review in February 2026 (American Nuclear Society, 2026a; NucNet, 2026).
* Michigan is America's natural gas storehouse: The state's underground storage fields can hold about 688 billion cubic feet of working natural gas--the largest such capacity of any state and about one-seventh of the Lower 48 total--letting Michigan buy natural gas cheaply in summer and deliver it through Great Lakes winters (U.S. Energy Information Administration [EIA], 2026a, 2026b).
* The Line 5 tunnel is finally moving: Under the national energy emergency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers granted the Great Lakes Tunnel Project emergency processing in April 2025 (Oil & Gas Journal, 2025), and in July 2026 Michigan's environmental agencies issued key state permits for the tunnel that will encase Line 5 beneath the Straits of Mackinac--a project supporters say protects the propane and fuel supplies Michigan households depend on, with additional state permitting and the Army Corps' final sign-off still ahead (Michigan Public, 2026c).
* The district powers itself: Lansing's municipally owned Board of Water & Light generates local power at the $500 million, 250-MW Delta Energy Park natural gas plant in Delta Township (American Public Power Association, 2022).
* Federal reform: Executive Order 14302 sets the goal of 10 new large reactors under construction by 2030 (Exec. Order No. 14302, 2025), and AFPI's OBBB analysis notes the bill "maintains support to produce reliable nuclear energy through tax relief" (AFPI, 2025a). Nationally, U.S. crude oil production set another all-time record of 13.6 million barrels per day in 2025 (EIA, 2026c).
Education: Michigan Families Are Choosing--and $1,700 Federal Scholarships Are One Decision Away
Michigan parents already vote with their feet: About one in 10 students attends a charter public school, and the state's homeschool law is among the freest in the country. Now the OBBB has created the first-ever federal tax-credit scholarship--a tax credit worth up to $1,700 for donations to scholarship-granting organizations (SGOs), effective January 1, 2027--and the biggest step between Michigan families and those scholarships is the governor's decision to opt the state in; a participating state must then submit its list of qualified SGOs to the IRS. Opponents point to Michigan's constitutional ban on aid to nonpublic schools, while supporters note the credit turns on private donations, not state funds (IRS, 2026b, 2026c; Chalkbeat, 2026a).
* School choice is mainstream in Michigan: In 2022-23 (the most recent year analyzed), 373 charter public schools served 150,486 students--10.5% of all Michigan students--and in Detroit more children in grades 3-12 attended school outside the city district than in it in 2021-22 (Data Driven Detroit, 2024). In the district, Ingham County's charter public schools serve about 3,700 students (Public School Review, 2026).
* Homeschool freedom is a Michigan hallmark: The Home School Legal Defense Association classifies Michigan as a "no notice, low regulation" state--most homeschooling families never file paperwork with anyone, and no state testing is required (Home School Legal Defense Association, n.d.).
* Results are moving in the right direction: Michigan's four-year graduation rate reached a record high of just over 84% for the Class of 2025, up from 82.8% the year before--and the Lansing School District posted a 94% graduation rate, up from 62.1% just four years earlier--even as work remains on college readiness (Michigan Department of Education, 2026; Chalkbeat, 2026b).
* Federal reform: As of July 24, 2026, 30 states had signed up for the OBBB's federal scholarship tax credit--neighboring Indiana and Ohio among them--but Michigan has not. The State Board of Education urged the governor to stay out on a 6-2 vote; the resolution is advisory, and the decision rests with the governor (IRS, 2026b; Chalkbeat, 2026a). Meanwhile, Workforce Pell Grants took effect July 1, 2026, opening federal aid for short-term skills credentials (U.S. Department of Education, 2026), and Executive Orders 14190, 14191, and 14242 expand education freedom and return authority over education to the states (Exec. Order No. 14190, 2025; Exec. Order No. 14191, 2025; Exec. Order No. 14242, 2025).
* AFPI helped build this wave: Beginning in early 2022, AFPI's Center for Education Opportunity produced more than 20 research reports, state fact sheets, and model education savings account legislation as universal school choice swept eight states (AFPI, 2023)--momentum Michigan families can now join through the federal scholarship program the moment the state opts in.
Safer Communities: Michigan's Recovery Is Being Locked In--From Lansing to the Northern Border
Fentanyl reached every corner of Michigan--and mid-Michigan paid the price. Now the recovery is taking hold where families live: overdose deaths and violent crime are falling across Michigan, from Detroit to Lansing. Under the Trump Administration, federal enforcement--at Michigan's own northern border crossings and across the state's interior--has surged, which supporters say is reinforcing and locking in those hard-won gains.
* * *
Figure 2. Opioid-Related Overdose Deaths Among Ingham County Residents.
* * *
* The fentanyl tide is receding in mid-Michigan: Opioid-related deaths among Ingham County residents fell from 98 in 2023 to 48 in 2024--cut in half in a single year--and Lansing Fire Department naloxone runs fell for the second straight year (Ingham County Health Department, 2025; WLNS, 2025).
* Statewide progress: The overdose death rate has fallen 47% since 2021 (Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, 2026), with preliminary data projecting fewer than 2,000 deaths in 2024, down from nearly 3,000 annually at the height of the crisis (9&10 News, 2026). Nationally, overdose deaths fell almost 14% in 2025--a third straight annual decline (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2026).
* Communities are safer: Detroit closed 2025 with 165 criminal homicides--down 19% in one year and 35% from 2023, and by city data the fewest since 1965--with nonfatal shootings down 26% and carjackings down 46% (Michigan Public, 2026b; City of Detroit, 2026; Kelly, 2026). In Lansing, homicides fell to seven in 2025, down from 26 at the city's 2021 peak (Lansing State Journal, 2026).
* Michigan's own border is producing results: U.S. Border Patrol's Detroit Sector--covering 863 maritime miles of the northern border across Michigan and Ohio--recorded 681 narcotics seizures from fiscal year (FY) 2019 through March 2026, the most of any northern border sector, according to a Government Accountability Office review (Homeland Security Today, 2026). At the ports of entry, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers had seized more than 1,300 pounds of cocaine at Michigan crossings midway through FY2025, including a 116-pound load in an outbound commercial vehicle at the Ambassador Bridge (Guthrie, 2025), and in June 2026 pulled another 133 pounds--55 shrink-wrapped bricks hidden in a Canada-bound commercial truck--near the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron, with the driver facing federal charges (Sherman, 2026).
* Interior enforcement is delivering in Michigan: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests in the state nearly tripled--2,349 from January through October 2025, almost three times the same period in 2024--and deportations from Michigan nearly tripled last year (Bridge Michigan, 2026). The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), an immigration-reduction advocacy group, estimates illegal immigration costs Michigan taxpayers about $1.1 billion a year--including $955 million for education (FAIR, 2023). AFPI documented these costs in its Michigan immigration fact sheet (AFPI, n.d.).
* The national picture reinforces those gains: Southwest border apprehensions in FY2025 totaled 237,538--the lowest level since 1970 (House Committee on Homeland Security, 2025)--with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reporting 14 consecutive months of zero releases at the border (DHS, 2026; Athrappully, 2026)--a squeeze on the national fentanyl pipeline that supporters say is helping lock in Michigan's gains.
Conclusion: The Comeback Is Accelerating in Mid-Michigan
The Great American Comeback is reaching the place where America builds its cars. Federal tax relief worth $3,131 to the average Michigan filer--and $2,162 to the district's joint filers with two or more children--stacks on top of GM's $1.25 billion bet on Lansing Grand River. America's first restart of a commercial nuclear reactor in decommissioning is underway at Palisades while the Nation's largest natural gas storage network sits under Michigan soil. New $1,700 federal scholarship tax credits await the state's opt-in. And as enforcement surges--at Michigan's own northern border crossings, across the state's interior, and at the national border--the recovery is accelerating: Opioid deaths in Ingham County have been cut in half and Detroit murders have fallen to their lowest level since 1965. The federal reforms are on the table--mid-Michigan's families are already collecting the returns.
A profile of Michigan's 7th Congressional District | August 2026 | This report was prepared with the support of Office for Fiscal and Regulatory Analysis AI tools.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/michigan-the-great-american-comeback
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
MICHIGAN: THE GREAT AMERICAN COMEBACK
The Economy: The Working Families Tax Cuts Land Where America Builds Its Cars
The Working Families Tax Cuts (WFTC)--enacted as the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) and signed July 4, 2025--deliver what supporters call the largest federal tax relief for working families in a generation, and their provisions matter most in auto states: permanent 100% expensing for factories and equipment, plus a new deduction for interest on loans for U.S.-assembled vehicles--the ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following fact sheet: * * * MICHIGAN: THE GREAT AMERICAN COMEBACK The Economy: The Working Families Tax Cuts Land Where America Builds Its Cars The Working Families Tax Cuts (WFTC)--enacted as the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) and signed July 4, 2025--deliver what supporters call the largest federal tax relief for working families in a generation, and their provisions matter most in auto states: permanent 100% expensing for factories and equipment, plus a new deduction for interest on loans for U.S.-assembled vehicles--thevehicles the Lansing region builds. The America First Policy Institute's (AFPI) Office for Fiscal and Regulatory Analysis (OFRA) estimates the law's new worker-focused provisions alone save mid-Michigan's biggest beneficiaries--joint filers with two or more children--an average of $2,162 for tax year 2025 (AFPI, OFRA, 2026b).
* * *
Figure 1. Estimated Average Working Families Tax Cuts Savings by Household Type, Michigan's 7th Congressional District, Tax Year 2025.
* * *
* Cadillac is committed to Lansing: In October 2025, General Motors (GM) confirmed the next-generation Cadillac CT5--a gas-powered sedan--will be built at Lansing Grand River Assembly, and said it is moving ahead with the $1.25 billion investment it first committed in 2023, funding a state-of-the-art paint shop transformation, new conveyors, and upgraded welding and control systems (GM Authority, 2025; WKZO, 2025). Lansing Grand River and GM's Lansing Delta Township plant in Eaton County anchor the district's manufacturing base.
* More gas-powered vehicles are coming back to Michigan: GM said in June 2025 it is investing about $4 billion in its U.S. plants--including Orion Assembly in nearby Oakland County, which will begin building gas-powered full-size SUVs and light-duty pickups in early 2027 (General Motors, 2025).
* Federal reform: The WFTC delivers no tax on tips (up to $25,000), no tax on overtime (up to $12,500/$25,000 joint), a $2,200 Child Tax Credit, a new $6,000 senior deduction, and a deduction of up to $10,000 in car-loan interest on U.S.-assembled vehicles (Internal Revenue Service [IRS], 2025, 2026a). The Tax Foundation estimates the average Michigan filer saves $3,131 in 2026 (Tax Foundation, 2026)--and the relief looms even larger as a share of taxes owed: the average filer in the median state keeps about 15.8% of what they would otherwise pay (Brashers & O'Quinn, 2025).
* AFPI has modeled the WFTC district by district: The new worker-focused provisions alone--one slice of the broader $3,131 full-bill average, which also counts permanence of the 2017 tax cuts and business provisions--save the average 7th District filer $878 for tax year 2025, more than the $765 statewide average, rising to $1,404 for families with children, $2,162 for joint filers with two or more children, and $1,153 for seniors. A Lansing-area nurse who works overtime keeps an estimated $2,159--about 76% more than the $1,227 a similar nurse saves in Illinois at a nearly identical wage (AFPI, OFRA, 2026a, 2026b, 2026c).
* Incomes are rising--and the job market needs the OBBB's factory boost: Per capita personal income reached $66,556 in 2025, up 4.1% before inflation (Bureau of Economic Analysis [BEA], 2026a). Michigan's unemployment rate stood at 5.0% in June 2026--a slight monthly downtick that came as the state's labor force shrank--but it still runs above the U.S. rate of 4.2%--roughly the same gap as at the close of the Biden Administration, when Michigan stood at 5.0% against a national 4.1% in December 2024 (Michigan Department of Technology, Management & Budget [DTMB], 2025, 2026; Michigan Public, 2026a; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2026). Closing that gap is exactly what the OBBB's permanent 100% expensing for factories, equipment, and research is for--AFPI's analysis finds it adds an expected 1.2% to long-run GDP (AFPI, 2025b).
* Paychecks stretch further in Michigan: Overall prices run about 3.8% below the national average--with rents about 17.7% lower (2024 data) (BEA, 2026b, 2026c). Stack thousands of dollars in federal tax relief on below-average prices, and affordability becomes a mid-Michigan advantage.
Energy: America's First Nuclear Plant Restart Is Happening in Michigan
President Trump's Executive Orders 14154 (Unleashing American Energy) and 14156 (Declaring a National Energy Emergency) put reliable, affordable energy back at the center of federal policy, and Executive Order 14302 (Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base) directs an American nuclear renaissance (Exec. Order No. 14154, 2025; Exec. Order No. 14156, 2025; Exec. Order No. 14302, 2025). Michigan hosts that renaissance's signature project--the federally backed restart of the Palisades nuclear plant on Lake Michigan--on top of the Nation's largest natural gas storage network.
* History is being made at Palisades: Holtec International's 800-megawatt (MW) Palisades plant in Covert Township is, in the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) words, "America's first restart of a commercial nuclear reactor in decommissioning." DOE has disbursed nearly half a billion dollars of a federal loan guarantee of up to $1.52 billion, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has approved the licensing actions returning the plant from decommissioning status to operations (DOE, 2025). In July 2026, Holtec closed out the last major restart projects and shifted to final testing and readiness work ahead of fuel load--and although no firm restart date has been announced, the plant's power is under contract by March 2027 (Holtec International, 2026; American Nuclear Society, 2026b).
* The next wave is already filed: Holtec plans two of its SMR-300 small modular reactors at the Palisades site, submitting the first part of a construction permit application on December 31, 2025; the NRC accepted it for review in February 2026 (American Nuclear Society, 2026a; NucNet, 2026).
* Michigan is America's natural gas storehouse: The state's underground storage fields can hold about 688 billion cubic feet of working natural gas--the largest such capacity of any state and about one-seventh of the Lower 48 total--letting Michigan buy natural gas cheaply in summer and deliver it through Great Lakes winters (U.S. Energy Information Administration [EIA], 2026a, 2026b).
* The Line 5 tunnel is finally moving: Under the national energy emergency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers granted the Great Lakes Tunnel Project emergency processing in April 2025 (Oil & Gas Journal, 2025), and in July 2026 Michigan's environmental agencies issued key state permits for the tunnel that will encase Line 5 beneath the Straits of Mackinac--a project supporters say protects the propane and fuel supplies Michigan households depend on, with additional state permitting and the Army Corps' final sign-off still ahead (Michigan Public, 2026c).
* The district powers itself: Lansing's municipally owned Board of Water & Light generates local power at the $500 million, 250-MW Delta Energy Park natural gas plant in Delta Township (American Public Power Association, 2022).
* Federal reform: Executive Order 14302 sets the goal of 10 new large reactors under construction by 2030 (Exec. Order No. 14302, 2025), and AFPI's OBBB analysis notes the bill "maintains support to produce reliable nuclear energy through tax relief" (AFPI, 2025a). Nationally, U.S. crude oil production set another all-time record of 13.6 million barrels per day in 2025 (EIA, 2026c).
Education: Michigan Families Are Choosing--and $1,700 Federal Scholarships Are One Decision Away
Michigan parents already vote with their feet: About one in 10 students attends a charter public school, and the state's homeschool law is among the freest in the country. Now the OBBB has created the first-ever federal tax-credit scholarship--a tax credit worth up to $1,700 for donations to scholarship-granting organizations (SGOs), effective January 1, 2027--and the biggest step between Michigan families and those scholarships is the governor's decision to opt the state in; a participating state must then submit its list of qualified SGOs to the IRS. Opponents point to Michigan's constitutional ban on aid to nonpublic schools, while supporters note the credit turns on private donations, not state funds (IRS, 2026b, 2026c; Chalkbeat, 2026a).
* School choice is mainstream in Michigan: In 2022-23 (the most recent year analyzed), 373 charter public schools served 150,486 students--10.5% of all Michigan students--and in Detroit more children in grades 3-12 attended school outside the city district than in it in 2021-22 (Data Driven Detroit, 2024). In the district, Ingham County's charter public schools serve about 3,700 students (Public School Review, 2026).
* Homeschool freedom is a Michigan hallmark: The Home School Legal Defense Association classifies Michigan as a "no notice, low regulation" state--most homeschooling families never file paperwork with anyone, and no state testing is required (Home School Legal Defense Association, n.d.).
* Results are moving in the right direction: Michigan's four-year graduation rate reached a record high of just over 84% for the Class of 2025, up from 82.8% the year before--and the Lansing School District posted a 94% graduation rate, up from 62.1% just four years earlier--even as work remains on college readiness (Michigan Department of Education, 2026; Chalkbeat, 2026b).
* Federal reform: As of July 24, 2026, 30 states had signed up for the OBBB's federal scholarship tax credit--neighboring Indiana and Ohio among them--but Michigan has not. The State Board of Education urged the governor to stay out on a 6-2 vote; the resolution is advisory, and the decision rests with the governor (IRS, 2026b; Chalkbeat, 2026a). Meanwhile, Workforce Pell Grants took effect July 1, 2026, opening federal aid for short-term skills credentials (U.S. Department of Education, 2026), and Executive Orders 14190, 14191, and 14242 expand education freedom and return authority over education to the states (Exec. Order No. 14190, 2025; Exec. Order No. 14191, 2025; Exec. Order No. 14242, 2025).
* AFPI helped build this wave: Beginning in early 2022, AFPI's Center for Education Opportunity produced more than 20 research reports, state fact sheets, and model education savings account legislation as universal school choice swept eight states (AFPI, 2023)--momentum Michigan families can now join through the federal scholarship program the moment the state opts in.
Safer Communities: Michigan's Recovery Is Being Locked In--From Lansing to the Northern Border
Fentanyl reached every corner of Michigan--and mid-Michigan paid the price. Now the recovery is taking hold where families live: overdose deaths and violent crime are falling across Michigan, from Detroit to Lansing. Under the Trump Administration, federal enforcement--at Michigan's own northern border crossings and across the state's interior--has surged, which supporters say is reinforcing and locking in those hard-won gains.
* * *
Figure 2. Opioid-Related Overdose Deaths Among Ingham County Residents.
* * *
* The fentanyl tide is receding in mid-Michigan: Opioid-related deaths among Ingham County residents fell from 98 in 2023 to 48 in 2024--cut in half in a single year--and Lansing Fire Department naloxone runs fell for the second straight year (Ingham County Health Department, 2025; WLNS, 2025).
* Statewide progress: The overdose death rate has fallen 47% since 2021 (Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, 2026), with preliminary data projecting fewer than 2,000 deaths in 2024, down from nearly 3,000 annually at the height of the crisis (9&10 News, 2026). Nationally, overdose deaths fell almost 14% in 2025--a third straight annual decline (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2026).
* Communities are safer: Detroit closed 2025 with 165 criminal homicides--down 19% in one year and 35% from 2023, and by city data the fewest since 1965--with nonfatal shootings down 26% and carjackings down 46% (Michigan Public, 2026b; City of Detroit, 2026; Kelly, 2026). In Lansing, homicides fell to seven in 2025, down from 26 at the city's 2021 peak (Lansing State Journal, 2026).
* Michigan's own border is producing results: U.S. Border Patrol's Detroit Sector--covering 863 maritime miles of the northern border across Michigan and Ohio--recorded 681 narcotics seizures from fiscal year (FY) 2019 through March 2026, the most of any northern border sector, according to a Government Accountability Office review (Homeland Security Today, 2026). At the ports of entry, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers had seized more than 1,300 pounds of cocaine at Michigan crossings midway through FY2025, including a 116-pound load in an outbound commercial vehicle at the Ambassador Bridge (Guthrie, 2025), and in June 2026 pulled another 133 pounds--55 shrink-wrapped bricks hidden in a Canada-bound commercial truck--near the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron, with the driver facing federal charges (Sherman, 2026).
* Interior enforcement is delivering in Michigan: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests in the state nearly tripled--2,349 from January through October 2025, almost three times the same period in 2024--and deportations from Michigan nearly tripled last year (Bridge Michigan, 2026). The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), an immigration-reduction advocacy group, estimates illegal immigration costs Michigan taxpayers about $1.1 billion a year--including $955 million for education (FAIR, 2023). AFPI documented these costs in its Michigan immigration fact sheet (AFPI, n.d.).
* The national picture reinforces those gains: Southwest border apprehensions in FY2025 totaled 237,538--the lowest level since 1970 (House Committee on Homeland Security, 2025)--with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reporting 14 consecutive months of zero releases at the border (DHS, 2026; Athrappully, 2026)--a squeeze on the national fentanyl pipeline that supporters say is helping lock in Michigan's gains.
Conclusion: The Comeback Is Accelerating in Mid-Michigan
The Great American Comeback is reaching the place where America builds its cars. Federal tax relief worth $3,131 to the average Michigan filer--and $2,162 to the district's joint filers with two or more children--stacks on top of GM's $1.25 billion bet on Lansing Grand River. America's first restart of a commercial nuclear reactor in decommissioning is underway at Palisades while the Nation's largest natural gas storage network sits under Michigan soil. New $1,700 federal scholarship tax credits await the state's opt-in. And as enforcement surges--at Michigan's own northern border crossings, across the state's interior, and at the national border--the recovery is accelerating: Opioid deaths in Ingham County have been cut in half and Detroit murders have fallen to their lowest level since 1965. The federal reforms are on the table--mid-Michigan's families are already collecting the returns.
A profile of Michigan's 7th Congressional District | August 2026 | This report was prepared with the support of Office for Fiscal and Regulatory Analysis AI tools.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/michigan-the-great-american-comeback
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI Leaders Jennifer Hegseth and Christie Mullin Appointed to Military Spouse Commission
WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on Aug. 3, 2026:
* * *
AFPI Leaders Jennifer Hegseth and Christie Mullin Appointed to Military Spouse Commission
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) proudly congratulates Jennifer Hegseth, AFPI Senior Advisor, and Christie Mullin, AFPI Chair of Rural Policy, on their appointments as chair and member of the President's Military Spouse Commission.
The commission recognizes a fundamental truth that strong military families are essential to a strong military. The commission will identify ways to improve ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on Aug. 3, 2026: * * * AFPI Leaders Jennifer Hegseth and Christie Mullin Appointed to Military Spouse Commission The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) proudly congratulates Jennifer Hegseth, AFPI Senior Advisor, and Christie Mullin, AFPI Chair of Rural Policy, on their appointments as chair and member of the President's Military Spouse Commission. The commission recognizes a fundamental truth that strong military families are essential to a strong military. The commission will identify ways to improvethe quality of life for military spouses and families, help retain talented service members, and support America's all-volunteer force.
As a military spouse, Hegseth understands firsthand the sacrifices and challenges of military family life. Together with Mullin's leadership and commitment to serving others, their experience will bring valuable insight to the President's Military Spouse Commission as it works to strengthen support for military families.
"Jennifer Hegseth and Christie Mullin are incredible advocates for America's military families, and their leadership will be a tremendous asset to this commission," said Ashley Hayek, Executive Vice President of the America First Policy Institute and spouse of a U.S. Marine. "As a Marine wife, I know that when a service member raises their hand, the whole family serves. President Trump understands that supporting our warfighters means supporting the spouses and children who hold the home front. Jennifer and Christie know these families, understand their challenges, and will deliver real solutions to put America's warfighters and their families first."
AFPI applauds this commitment to America's warfighters and their families and congratulates Jennifer and Christie on these well-deserved appointments.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-leaders-jennifer-hegseth-and-christie-mullin-appointed-to-military-spouse-commission
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
AFPI Leaders Jennifer Hegseth and Christie Mullin Appointed to Military Spouse Commission
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) proudly congratulates Jennifer Hegseth, AFPI Senior Advisor, and Christie Mullin, AFPI Chair of Rural Policy, on their appointments as chair and member of the President's Military Spouse Commission.
The commission recognizes a fundamental truth that strong military families are essential to a strong military. The commission will identify ways to improve ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on Aug. 3, 2026: * * * AFPI Leaders Jennifer Hegseth and Christie Mullin Appointed to Military Spouse Commission The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) proudly congratulates Jennifer Hegseth, AFPI Senior Advisor, and Christie Mullin, AFPI Chair of Rural Policy, on their appointments as chair and member of the President's Military Spouse Commission. The commission recognizes a fundamental truth that strong military families are essential to a strong military. The commission will identify ways to improvethe quality of life for military spouses and families, help retain talented service members, and support America's all-volunteer force.
As a military spouse, Hegseth understands firsthand the sacrifices and challenges of military family life. Together with Mullin's leadership and commitment to serving others, their experience will bring valuable insight to the President's Military Spouse Commission as it works to strengthen support for military families.
"Jennifer Hegseth and Christie Mullin are incredible advocates for America's military families, and their leadership will be a tremendous asset to this commission," said Ashley Hayek, Executive Vice President of the America First Policy Institute and spouse of a U.S. Marine. "As a Marine wife, I know that when a service member raises their hand, the whole family serves. President Trump understands that supporting our warfighters means supporting the spouses and children who hold the home front. Jennifer and Christie know these families, understand their challenges, and will deliver real solutions to put America's warfighters and their families first."
AFPI applauds this commitment to America's warfighters and their families and congratulates Jennifer and Christie on these well-deserved appointments.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-leaders-jennifer-hegseth-and-christie-mullin-appointed-to-military-spouse-commission
[Category: ThinkTank]