Featured Stories
Resources for the Future: 'Decomposing the Double Materiality of Climate-Related Financial Risk'
WASHINGTON, June 26 (TNSLrpt) -- Resources for the Future issued the following working paper (No. 26-09) on June 16, 2026 by Kevin Stiroh entitled "Decomposing the Double Materiality of Climate-Related Financial Risk".
Here is the abstract:
* * *
Financial policy discussions related to prudential policy and "double materiality" have considered both the impact of climate change on a bank and the impact that the bank has on climate change. This paper presents an illustrative framework with a set of internally consistent definitions and linkages to facilitate productive discussions for banks,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 26 (TNSLrpt) -- Resources for the Future issued the following working paper (No. 26-09) on June 16, 2026 by Kevin Stiroh entitled "Decomposing the Double Materiality of Climate-Related Financial Risk".
Here is the abstract:
* * *
Financial policy discussions related to prudential policy and "double materiality" have considered both the impact of climate change on a bank and the impact that the bank has on climate change. This paper presents an illustrative framework with a set of internally consistent definitions and linkages to facilitate productive discussions for banks,investors, and prudential and disclosure policymakers. The framework decomposes double materiality into several conceptually distinct linkages from the perspective of an individual bank: the exogenous impact of physical and transition risks, the impact of the bank's activities on climate change and resulting risk drivers, feedback effects from the bank's activities on its own risks, and spillover effects to other financial institutions or the broader economy. By providing clear definitions and incorporating insights from the macro-modeling literature, this framework can help promote more productive policy discussions.
* * *
View full working paper at: https://www.rff.org/publications/working-papers/decomposing-the-double-materiality-of-climate-related-financial-risk/
[Category: ThinkTank]
PPI Calls on Gov. Spanberger to Continue to Champion High Expectations for Student Learning in Virginia Public Schools
WASHINGTON, June 26 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Progressive Policy Institute posted the following news release:
* * *
PPI Calls on Gov. Spanberger to Continue to Champion High Expectations for Student Learning in Virginia Public Schools
Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) Director of Education Policy Rachel Canter released the following statement in response to the Virginia State Board of Education's vote to move forward with raising learning expectations for Virginia schools on their original timeline and reject further delays:
"The Virginia State Board of Education sent a strong message in
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 26 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Progressive Policy Institute posted the following news release:
* * *
PPI Calls on Gov. Spanberger to Continue to Champion High Expectations for Student Learning in Virginia Public Schools
Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) Director of Education Policy Rachel Canter released the following statement in response to the Virginia State Board of Education's vote to move forward with raising learning expectations for Virginia schools on their original timeline and reject further delays:
"The Virginia State Board of Education sent a strong message ina 7-0-1 vote yesterday that children in Virginia can't wait any longer for the state to get honest about how they're doing in reading, math, and science.
"In 2025, the Virginia State Board of Education made the forward-looking choice to increase the definition of grade-level learning on its state assessments from the lowest bar in the country to among the highest. This move was not only a recognition that the lowest-in-the-country learning expectations are not good enough for Virginia, but also a vote of confidence in the potential of Virginia students and teachers to meet the higher bar. After much debate between those who wanted the change to happen immediately and those who wanted a long runway, the Virginia State Board chose to compromise: the bar would be phased in over four years, by boosting the definition of 'proficient' until reaching the permanent, higher bar in 2029-2030.
"But as almost always happens, there's an effort afoot working harder to hide behind low expectations than helping students and teachers meet higher ones. On Wednesday, the State Board heard a proposal from the Virginia Department of Education to forgo increasing expectations until the 2028-2029 school year and then move the bar in one fell swoop.
"Thankfully, the Virginia State Board of Education recognized that calls to delay raising standards are just the nice facade people put on their true intentions to kill them entirely whenever the next deadline comes. Let's be honest why: Some schools and districts that look just fine right now will look less stellar when the system becomes more rigorous. It's not about student learning; it's about the perception of a system run by adults.
"But temporary growing pains -and that's what they are whenever we reach for better with kids -are not a reason to keep lying to children and families about how much students really know. We learned this lesson in Mississippi: Until we were truthful about what every child really knew, we couldn't start the process of getting a whole lot better. The sky did not fall when we leveled up what we wanted from kids. Instead, families gave us the grace to keep going because we all understood that leaping over a low state bar had only ever given us one thing -last place nationally.
"Every governor in America is an education governor, whether they know it or not. States spend an enormous portion of their budgets, and frequently a significant share of local taxes, on public education. It's one of the issues that touches the lives of every citizen in a profound way, helping to determine their opportunity in life and the economic vitality of the state and its communities. The great difference among our 50 education governors, then, is whether the person in the mansion leads on education with vision.
"Governor Spanberger has a rare opportunity to show the country what it looks like for a Democratic governor to speak loudly in support of high expectations for student learning, the belief that all children can learn, and the fundamental principle that improvement in any system begins with honesty about your starting place. She can show this commitment by supporting the State Board in staying the course. Between now and August, she can also fill the pending state board vacancy with a new member who shares the vision that Virginia students are capable of learning at high levels and that the job of education leaders is to align their work and resources to that end.
"Virginia students, like those in every state across the nation, deserve no less."
The Reinventing America's Schools Project inspires a 21st-century model of public education geared to the knowledge economy. Two models, public charter schools and public innovation schools, are showing the way by providing autonomy for schools, accountability for results, and parental choice among schools tailored to the diverse learning styles of children.
Founded in 1989, PPI is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Find an expert and learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Follow us at @PPI.
***
Original text here: https://www.progressivepolicy.org/ppi-calls-on-gov-spanberger-to-continue-to-champion-high-expectations-for-student-learning-in-virginia-public-schools/
Manhattan Institute Issues Commentary to Wall Street Journal: Radicals Inside the Tent
NEW YORK, June 26 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on June 25, 2026, by senior fellow James B. Meigs to the Wall Street Journal:
* * *
The Radicals Inside the Tent
Mainstream Democrats hope far-left insurgents will settle down after arriving in Washington. They're in for an ugly surprise.
"Free, free Palestine!" the crowd chanted when New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani arrived at the Tuesday night party celebrating the primary win of his close ally, Claire Valdez. Given the city's paucity of Republican voters, Ms. Valdez is almost certain to win a seat in
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, June 26 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on June 25, 2026, by senior fellow James B. Meigs to the Wall Street Journal:
* * *
The Radicals Inside the Tent
Mainstream Democrats hope far-left insurgents will settle down after arriving in Washington. They're in for an ugly surprise.
"Free, free Palestine!" the crowd chanted when New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani arrived at the Tuesday night party celebrating the primary win of his close ally, Claire Valdez. Given the city's paucity of Republican voters, Ms. Valdez is almost certain to win a seat inthe U.S. House of Representatives come November. So are Brad Lander and Darializa Avila Chevalier, two other insurgent candidates backed by the mayor.
Like Mr. Mamdani, all three upstart candidates have roots in the far-left Democratic Socialists of America. Their primary victories help cement Mr. Mamdani's "status as a formidable kingmaker," the Journal reports.
Once they arrive in Washington, the new members of Congress will share an agenda much broader than protecting the parochial interests of New Yorkers. Ms. Valdez and Ms. Chevalier consider themselves part of a socialist vanguard.
Their campaigns focused on claims that Israel is committing a "genocide" in Gaza. As the "Free Palestine" chants suggest, their closest supporters also believe this election reflects a global radical movement.
Continue reading the entire piece here at the Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/opinion/free-expression/the-radicals-inside-the-tent-4b9b2bb4?mod=e2tw)
* * *
James B. Meigs is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a City Journal contributing editor.
* * *
Original text here: https://manhattan.institute/article/the-radicals-inside-the-tent
[Category: ThinkTank]
Ifo Institute: Companies in Germany Cutting More Jobs (June 2026)
MUNICH, Germany, June 26 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release:
* * *
Companies in Germany Cutting More Jobs (June 2026)
Companies in Germany are planning to cut more jobs again. The ifo Employment Barometer fell to 92.3 points in June, down from 93.9 points in May. "The labor market remains weak," says Klaus Wohlrabe, Head of Surveys at ifo. "Germany is currently still a long way from a sustained recovery in employment."
The labor market in manufacturing remains tense.
Although the barometer has improved slightly, plans to cut jobs still predominate.
In wholesale and retail,
... Show Full Article
MUNICH, Germany, June 26 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release:
* * *
Companies in Germany Cutting More Jobs (June 2026)
Companies in Germany are planning to cut more jobs again. The ifo Employment Barometer fell to 92.3 points in June, down from 93.9 points in May. "The labor market remains weak," says Klaus Wohlrabe, Head of Surveys at ifo. "Germany is currently still a long way from a sustained recovery in employment."
The labor market in manufacturing remains tense.
Although the barometer has improved slightly, plans to cut jobs still predominate.
In wholesale and retail,job cuts are once again on the rise. Among service providers, the barometer fell considerably.
The situation remains particularly difficult for temporary employment agencies and in tourism.
In construction, on the other hand, hardly any changes are planned. Companies intend to keep their staffing levels largely constant.
* * *
More information
Survey (https://www.ifo.de/en/facts/2026-06-26/companies-germany-cutting-more-jobs-june-2026)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2026-06-26/companies-germany-cutting-more-jobs-june-2026
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center on Budget & Policy Priorities: Five Reasons HSAs Aren't the Answer to the Health Care Affordability Crisis
WASHINGTON, June 26 -- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued the following commentary on June 25, 2026, by Nicole Rapfogel, senior policy analyst for marketplace and private insurance policy:
* * *
Five Reasons HSAs Aren't the Answer to the Health Care Affordability Crisis
People across the U.S. are struggling to access and afford health coverage and care, in part because the 2025 Republican reconciliation law slashed Medicaid, and Republicans in Congress refused to extend enhancements for premium tax credits that helped millions of people buy coverage on the Affordable Care Act
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 26 -- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued the following commentary on June 25, 2026, by Nicole Rapfogel, senior policy analyst for marketplace and private insurance policy:
* * *
Five Reasons HSAs Aren't the Answer to the Health Care Affordability Crisis
People across the U.S. are struggling to access and afford health coverage and care, in part because the 2025 Republican reconciliation law slashed Medicaid, and Republicans in Congress refused to extend enhancements for premium tax credits that helped millions of people buy coverage on the Affordable Care Actmarketplaces. In the wake of their actions that have worsened health care affordability, President Trump and some in Congress have pushed expanding health savings accounts (HSAs) -- tax-advantaged accounts in which enrollees in certain health plans can set aside money for medical expenses -- as a solution.
The last year's Republican reconciliation law expanded HSA eligibility, which was originally limited to people with high-deductible health plans, to also include enrollees in bronze plans or catastrophic plans offered in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplaces. Republicans have since put forward several additional ideas for vastly expanding HSAs.
The problem is that HSAs are not the answer to improving health care affordability for the people who need it most. Here are five reasons why:
1. HSAs mainly help people with higher incomes, while doing little for people struggling the most with health care costs.
HSAs offer a triple tax advantage that primarily benefits higher-income people: (1) contributions are not taxed; (2) contributions can be invested in stocks and bonds and rolled over indefinitely, with tax-free earnings; and (3) withdrawals are not taxable if they are used for qualified medical expenses that occurred after the HSA was created.
Higher-income people are able to take greater advantage of these tax policies. They not only have more money to contribute and invest but also get a bigger tax benefit for each dollar contributed because they are in higher tax brackets. For example, a married couple making $800,000 saves 37 cents for each dollar contributed to an HSA, while a married couple making $30,000 saves only 12 cents.
Meanwhile, people with low and moderate incomes, who have the greatest difficulty affording health coverage, are less likely to have the cash to contribute to an HSA. They also receive a smaller per-dollar tax benefit for any contributions they are able to make.
2. HSAs benefit insurance companies and banks at the expense of people with low and moderate incomes.
Despite President Trump's claims that HSAs are a tool to send "the money directly back to the people" instead of insurance companies, HSA providers often have financial relationships with insurance companies that may profit from the accounts. For many HSAs, including those offered with individual market plans, insurers promote a default or preferred HSA to their enrollees. In some cases, the insurer and the entity offering the HSA are subsidiaries of the same parent company (for example, UnitedHealthcare and Optum Bank) or work in close partnership (like Aetna and Inspira Financial), enabling them to steer enrollees into specific HSAs.
Many HSA providers offer enrollees, especially those with low incomes, a bad deal. People who anticipate needing to use their HSA funds to pay for medical care (instead of using their HSA as an investment vehicle because they have enough money to pay for medical care out of pocket) are unlikely to invest their HSA contributions. HSA providers often offer below-market interest rates for uninvested deposits.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that many HSA providers impose numerous charges, resulting in frequent complaints from consumers about junk and surprise fees. Employers often cover some of these fees when providing an HSA to employees, but when people buying coverage on their own get an HSA, they must pay the fees themselves.
In fact, people whose HSAs have low balances could pay more in fees than they gain in interest from the accounts. For example, a person maintaining a $1,000 balance for a year could accrue 50 cents or less in interest, while paying as much as $47 in fees.
3. HSAs exacerbate racial disparities in wealth.
Among people with private health coverage, Latino and Black people are about half as likely to have HSAs as white and Asian people. Moreover, HSA holders in disproportionately Black or Latino zip codes contribute smaller amounts and have lower balances, on average, than HSA holders in disproportionately white or Asian zip codes.
Against a backdrop of long-standing racial disparities in wealth that can be traced to discrimination in housing, banking, taxation, and other areas -- a typical white family in 2022 had six times the wealth of a typical Black family and five times the wealth of a typical Latino family -- HSAs provide preferential tax treatment that is disproportionately out of reach for Black and Latino people.
4. HSAs don't protect people from major health care costs.
Unlike comprehensive insurance coverage, HSAs do not insulate enrollees from owing large amounts of money when they face an expensive health problem. The tax advantages of an HSA coupled with a high-deductible, bronze, or catastrophic health plan are no substitute for higher-quality insurance, like silver or higher-metal level plans available on the ACA marketplaces. In fact, high-deductible plans are associated with reduced or delayed health care and worse survival outcomes among cancer survivors.
5. The cost of HSAs crowds out policies that truly address affordability.
Even under current law, HSAs are projected to cost $182 billion in lost revenues from 2026 to 2035, and many proposals to expand HSAs would add significantly to that amount. Those federal resources could be put to far better use to help the people who struggle the most to afford health care.
For instance, policymakers could restore the premium tax credit (PTC) enhancements that reduced costs for millions of people in the marketplaces, including many gig workers and small business employees (see chart). Or they could undo the reconciliation law's massive cuts in Medicaid, which will take coverage away from millions of people.
* * *
Chart: Value of HSAs Skewed to the Wealthy, Compared to Value of PTCs That Primarily Help People With Low to Moderate Incomes
* * *
Nicole Rapfogel
Nicole is the Senior Policy Analyst for Marketplace and Private Insurance Policy on the Health team.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cbpp.org/blog/five-reasons-hsas-arent-the-answer-to-the-health-care-affordability-crisis
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: They Let Billions Get Stolen From Medicaid
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, June 26 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on June 24, 2026, by policy fellow Matt Dean:
* * *
They let billions get stolen from Medicaid. Your health insurance just got more expensive.
Minnesotans who pay for their health insurance through the individual market will again see double-digit increases in premiums for 2027 if proposed hikes are green-lit. Rates are proposed in the summer and finalized in October by the Minnesota Department of Commerce,
... Show Full Article
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, June 26 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on June 24, 2026, by policy fellow Matt Dean:
* * *
They let billions get stolen from Medicaid. Your health insurance just got more expensive.
Minnesotans who pay for their health insurance through the individual market will again see double-digit increases in premiums for 2027 if proposed hikes are green-lit. Rates are proposed in the summer and finalized in October by the Minnesota Department of Commerce,just as voters are deciding who to vote for.
On the heels of last year's brutal rate increases that averaged 21%, with Medica seeing an increase of over 30%, this year's hikes will only add more pressure on policymakers as affordability takes center stage in the upcoming election. When insurance premium increases are approved and finalized weeks before Election Day, voters will receive notices of these premium hikes in the mail around the time ballots begin arriving. That should give heartburn to anyone on the ballot accused of not doing enough to control health care costs.
Minnesota Health Insurance Rate Increases
Individual Market - Plan Year 2027
Health Insurer ... 2027 Rate Increase
Aspirus Health Plan, Inc. ... New Issuer for 2027
Blue Plus ... 10.3%
Health Partners, Inc. ... 12.4%
Health Partners Insurance Co. ... 12.3%
Medica Insurance Company ... 13.0%
Quartz Health Plan MN ... 10.0%
Note: Aspirus Health Plan, Inc. is a new issuer entering the Minnesota individual market for 2027 and does not have a prior-year rate for comparison. Source: MN Dept of Commerce
Noticeably absent from the 2027 offerings is UCare. The 42-year-old company went into receivership and folded last year. The demise of that company underscores the extent to which subsidies, refinancing, and regulation have continued to grow spending in a state that needed to cut it. The inability to control spending has warped the economics of the market through intergovernmental transfers, sick taxes, and reinsurance. For UCare, those manipulations drove cost increases with no fundamental solutions to overspending, overutilization, and fraud that broke their business model.
Cost Drivers Remain Unchecked
Reinsurance is a means by which insurance company risk is partially socialized to taxpayers. This Minnesota-specific plan was passed into law and is now absorbed into the market, but the people writing the premium checks again seem not to have gotten a break. Voters were told that their premiums would go up 25% if the reinsurance program wasn't passed. Well, it was passed, and premiums went up 25% anyway. Last year, Minnesota Senate Democrats proposed raising the sick tax by 11%.
Voters received a similar message around health care provider taxes, often called "the sick tax." Governor Mark Dayton, a Democrat, killed the sick tax as federal Obamacare money flowed into the state, only to have Gov. Walz and a bipartisan group of legislative leaders revive the sick tax to prevent insurance premium increases.
Subsidies go up. Taxes go up. Spending goes up. But the increases are increasingly shouldered. by the people paying the lion's share of health care costs. More than 1.2 million Minnesotans--one in five--are on MNCare and Medicaid. Add Medicare and other taxpayer-supported plans, and the remaining premium-paying families and businesses are pushed beyond the threshold of pain.
Minnesota families are rationing care and essentially acting as their own insurers of last resort. With sky-high premiums, the only way many can keep the lights on is to accept very high deductibles. This makes most care an out-of-pocket expense for middle-class families in the individual market. It also means mom and dad might save precious out of pocket dollars for the kids and pray that their needed care or diagnostics can wait.
An Issue of Fairness
Last year, Governor Walz and Democrats in the legislature rejected a proposal to save over $300 million in fraud and improper payments by simply asking insurance companies to perform minimum checks before receiving taxpayer-funded payments on behalf of Medicaid enrollees. The proposed "I'm not a robot" legislation would have required insurance companies to contact enrollees to verify that they live in the state and are still alive before continuing to receive monthly payments on their behalf. Does that seem out of line to ask? Walz and DFL leaders said no.
Minnesotans are tired of being the butt of jokes on late-night TV. Up to $9 billion was stolen from Minnesota taxpayers through fraud. It is time to focus on the easiest way to lower health care costs: cleaning up the fraud mess.
* * *
Matt Dean is a Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment.
matt.dean@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/they-let-billions-get-stolen-from-medicaid-your-health-insurance-just-got-more-expensive/
[Category: ThinkTank]
American Action Forum Issues Commentary: Trump Administration's $87.6-Billion Supplemental Funding Request
WASHINGTON, June 26 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on June 25, 2026, by Fiscal Policy Director Jordan Haring:
* * *
The Trump Administration's $87.6-billion Supplemental Funding Request
Executive Summary
* The Trump Administration has submitted to Congress an $87.6-billion supplemental funding request for additional discretionary appropriations to support the ongoing conflict in the Middle East and provide aid to farmers, among other purposes.
* About $67.1 billion of the funding would be provided to the Department of Defense to refill military stockpiles; the
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 26 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on June 25, 2026, by Fiscal Policy Director Jordan Haring:
* * *
The Trump Administration's $87.6-billion Supplemental Funding Request
Executive Summary
* The Trump Administration has submitted to Congress an $87.6-billion supplemental funding request for additional discretionary appropriations to support the ongoing conflict in the Middle East and provide aid to farmers, among other purposes.
* About $67.1 billion of the funding would be provided to the Department of Defense to refill military stockpiles; theremaining $20.5 billion would provide additional support for the U.S. Coast Guard, temporary economic assistance to farmers, international affairs and humanitarian assistance, the design and construction of a modernized Penn Station, and continued restoration projects on the National Mall.
* The request comes as Congress is at an impasse over fiscal year 2027 appropriations.
-
Introduction
The Trump Administration has sent Congress a supplemental discretionary funding request totaling $87.6 billion. The request includes funding to refill military stockpiles that have been drawn down during the conflict in the Middle East, aid farmers, support infrastructure projects, and provide international and humanitarian aid, among other purposes. The package is the first supplemental funding request the Trump Administration has sent to Congress this term and comes as Congress is at an impasse over fiscal year (FY) 2027 appropriations.
What's in the Administration's $87.6-billion Supplemental Funding Request?
* * *
Summary of Trump Administration's Supplemental Funding Request
Category ... Amount
Funding to refill military stockpiles ... $67.1 billion
Temporary economic assistance for farmers ... $10.0 billion
Funding for the U.S. Coast Guard ... $2.0 billion
Funding for diplomatic programs ... $2.0 billion
Funding for global health and international humanitarian assistance programs ... $1.5 billion
Additional funding for the USDA's Processing, Research, and Marketing Account ... $1.1 billion
Funding for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Fund ... $1.0 billion
Funding to support the design and construction of a modernized Penn Station ... $1.0 billion
Funding for defense nuclear nonproliferation ... $0.7 billion
Funding for the Federal Buildings Fund ... $0.6 billion
Funding to support construction and restoration projects on the National Mall ... $0.5 billion
Other funding ... $0.2 billion
Total ... $87.6 billion
* * *
Of the supplemental funding, $67.1 billion would go to the Department of Defense (DOD) to replenish accounts that have been drawn down during the conflict in the Middle East. This includes $21.0 billion for munitions, $17.3 billion for operational costs, $5.1 billion for cybersecurity and autonomy, $4.0 billion for Airborne Moving Target Indication and the Space Data Network Backbone, $2.4 billion for drones, $1.7 billion for readiness, $1.5 billion for fuel costs, $1.2 billion for "administration priorities," and $0.8 billion for the National Guard. The remaining $12.1 billion would go to DOD classified programs.
Another $10.0 billion of funding would be used to provide temporary economic assistance to farmers that planted row and specialty crops in crop year 2026. An additional $1.1 billion would go to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Processing, Research, and Marketing Account to help farmers in Florida who suffered losses due to winter storms in late 2025 and early 2026.
The U.S. Coast Guard would receive $2.0 billion to support DOD activities in the Middle East and to fill in gaps where DOD assets are unavailable, including operations at the U.S. Southern Border.
A total of $2.0 billion would go to support U.S. diplomatic programs. This includes $1.4 billion for the Worldwide Security Protection program, $0.9 billion for the Department of State's Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems program, $0.3 billion for the Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance Account, $0.2 billion for the Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Services Account, and $0.1 billion for U.S. missions' operations. Another $1.5 billion would go to global health and international humanitarian assistance programs, including $0.8 billion in assistance to combat the Ebola outbreak in Central Africa.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation would get $1.0 billion to increase the benefit levels for participants in certain pension plans that were supported by the Delphi Corporation and terminated because of General Motors' bankruptcy in 2009.
The Federal Railroad Administration would receive $1.0 billion to support the design and construction of a modernized Penn Station. The Federal Buildings Fund would receive $0.6 billion to support capital projects across the country. The National Parks Service would receive $0.5 billion to support construction and restoration projects on the National Mall.
Conclusion
The Trump Administration's $87.6-billion supplemental funding request reflects a broad effort to address both domestic and international priorities, with most funding dedicated to replenishing military resources used during the conflict in the Middle East. The package also includes targeted support for farmers, diplomatic and humanitarian programs, infrastructure investments, and federal facilities. As Congress continues to face delays in completing FY 2027 appropriations, lawmakers will need to determine whether and how to advance this supplemental request alongside ongoing negotiations over regular government funding.
* * *
Jordan Haring is the Director of Fiscal Policy at the American Action Forum
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/the-trump-administrations-87-6-billion-supplemental-funding-request/
[Category: Think Tank]
