Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Ifo Institute: Reform Options for an Economically Sustainable Pension in Germany Meet With Little Approval Among the Population
MUNICH, Germany, Jan. 24 (TNSrep) -- ifo Institute issued the following news release:
* * *
Reform Options for an Economically Sustainable Pension in Germany Meet with Little Approval Among the Population
The majority of the population in Germany reject reforms that would strengthen the sustainability of statutory pension insurance, as a study by the ifo Institute concludes. "Linking the statutory retirement age to life expectancy and limiting pension increases to a greater extent are necessary but not very popular," says ifo researcher Mathias Dolls. "In addition, the respondents underestimate
... Show Full Article
MUNICH, Germany, Jan. 24 (TNSrep) -- ifo Institute issued the following news release:
* * *
Reform Options for an Economically Sustainable Pension in Germany Meet with Little Approval Among the Population
The majority of the population in Germany reject reforms that would strengthen the sustainability of statutory pension insurance, as a study by the ifo Institute concludes. "Linking the statutory retirement age to life expectancy and limiting pension increases to a greater extent are necessary but not very popular," says ifo researcher Mathias Dolls. "In addition, the respondents underestimatethe unequal age distribution of eligible voters in Germany. This is characterized by a high proportion of older voters. As a result, the interests of the younger generation are at risk of being given too little consideration in the political process."
The researchers asked the survey participants about their approval of two reform options: firstly, a retirement age linked to life expectancy and secondly, a reduction in pension increases so that they rise less sharply than wages and salaries. On a scale of 0 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree), the average approval ratings for the two reform measures presented are between two and three.
At the same time, respondents were asked to estimate how many eligible voters were aged 55 and older, or 25 or younger. "The respondents estimate the difference between the over 55s and the under 25s to be around 25 percentage points. In fact, the figure is 38 percentage points," says Lisa Windsteiger, professor at the University of Salzburg and research director at the ifo Institute.
A note was added to this information, stating that a high proportion of older voters may result in the concerns of the younger and future generations not being sufficiently heard by politicians. "Our study shows a sobering picture: Simply providing facts is not enough to increase acceptance of reform measures," says ifo researcher Julia Baarck. In fact, it seems that people on the political right become even more opposed to the reforms when given this information.
* * *
Publication
2026 Article in Journal
Informationen uber Ungleichheit verandern Gerechtigkeitsempfinden
Julia Baarck, Matthias Dolls, Lisa Windsteiger
ifo Schnelldienst, 2026, 79, Nr. 1 62-68
Learn more (https://www.ifo.de/en/publications/2026/article-journal/informationen-ueber-ungleichheit-veraendern-gerechtigkeitsempfinden)
* * *
Study
2025 Working Paper
How Does Information About Inequalities Affect Fairness Views and Policy Preferences? Evidence from a Randomized Survey Experiment
Julia Baarck, Mathias Dolls, Lisa Windsteiger
CESifo Working Paper No. 12234
Learn more (https://www.ifo.de/en/cesifo/publications/2025/working-paper/how-does-information-about-inequalities-affect-fairness-views-and)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2026-01-23/reform-options-for-an-economically-sustainable-pension-in-germany-meet-with-little-approval
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center Issues InfluenceWatch Wrapup on Jan. 23, 2026
WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following InfluenceWatch wrapup on Jan. 23, 2026:
* * *
By Jonathan Harsh
InfluenceWatch, a project of Capital Research Center, is a comprehensive and ever-evolving compilation of our research into the numerous advocacy groups, foundations, and donors working to influence the public policy process. The website offers transparency into these influencers' funding, motives, and connections while providing insight often neglected by other watchdog groups.
The information compiled in InfluenceWatch gives news outlets and other interested
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following InfluenceWatch wrapup on Jan. 23, 2026:
* * *
By Jonathan Harsh
InfluenceWatch, a project of Capital Research Center, is a comprehensive and ever-evolving compilation of our research into the numerous advocacy groups, foundations, and donors working to influence the public policy process. The website offers transparency into these influencers' funding, motives, and connections while providing insight often neglected by other watchdog groups.
The information compiled in InfluenceWatch gives news outlets and other interestedparties research to use in reporting on significant topics that are often overlooked by the American public.
CRC is pleased to present some of the most significant additions to InfluenceWatch in the past week:
* The Sustainable Food Alliance is a left-of-center advocacy group that promotes what it calls "sustainable agriculture" and a transition towards using "sustainable food and farming systems." It works alongside the Sustainable Food Trust, a United Kingdom-based charity founded in 2011 by environmental advocate Patrick Holden. The Sustainable Food Alliance has received funding from foundations including the Tides Foundation, the Gordon E. and Betty I. Moore Foundation, the California Endowment, the Seattle Foundation, the National Philanthropic Trust, the Greater Kansas City Community Foundation, and the Atlantic Foundation.
* All of Us is a research program of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). It was created during the Obama Administration in 2015, through the NIH's Precision Medicine Initiative Working Group of the Advisory Committee to the Director. All of Us aims to collect genetic samples of up to 1 million participants to study the impact of ancestry and genetic traits. Its CEO Josh Denny is an elected member of the National Academy of Medicine.
* GoFundMe.Org is a nonprofit associated with the digital crowdfunding platform GoFundMe. As of 2026, its current and former partners include Leonardo DiCaprio, Laurene Powell Jobs, Ellen DeGeneres, and former first lady Michelle Obama. Its partner foundations and corporations have included the Obama Foundation, the Asian American Foundation, the TIME'S UP Legal Defense Fund, Welcome.US, Netflix, Google, and Microsoft.
* Hunt Alternatives is an advocacy group that claims to promote "global peace, equity, justice, and civil rights." It was founded by Swanee Hunt, a philanthropist and the former US Ambassador to Austria during the Clinton Administration. In recent years Hunt Alternatives has been largely funded by Swanee Hunt and the Swanee Hunt Family Foundation.
* Bank Information Center (BIC) is a Washington D.C.-based nonprofit that advocates for "transparency, accountability, sustainability, and inclusion in development finance." According to its website, BIC works to "monitor and influence the policies and operations of the World Bank Group" by partnering with other organizations to perform "research and advocacy aimed at improving and reforming [Multilateral Development Bank] policy and practices." BIC has received funding from left-of-center groups such as the Ford Foundation, the Climateworks Foundation, George Soros's Open Society Action Fund, and the National Endowment for Democracy.
* * *
Jonathan Harsh holds a master's degree in political science from James Madison University and a bachelor's degree in political science from Beloit College. He edits entries and content of the InfluenceWatch website and contributes new content.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/influencewatch-friday-01-23-2026/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: How Could Europe Respond to Future U.S. Threats to Greenland?
WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Jan. 22, 2026:
* * *
How Could Europe Respond to Future U.S. Threats to Greenland?
By Federico Steinberg, Emily Benson and Nicholas Fenton
The global economy started 2026 growing at a healthy pace, with stock markets at historic highs, and the paradox that the enormous level of geopolitical uncertainty does not seem to be affecting either growth or investor appetite. The global economy is therefore proving much more resilient to geopolitical shocks than could have been expected just
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Jan. 22, 2026:
* * *
How Could Europe Respond to Future U.S. Threats to Greenland?
By Federico Steinberg, Emily Benson and Nicholas Fenton
The global economy started 2026 growing at a healthy pace, with stock markets at historic highs, and the paradox that the enormous level of geopolitical uncertainty does not seem to be affecting either growth or investor appetite. The global economy is therefore proving much more resilient to geopolitical shocks than could have been expected justa few years ago. But the question is, how long can this momentum continue?
At the moment, one of the points of tension is Greenland, which remains the target of annexation by the United States. In fact, after President Trump repeated that he would like to "own" Greenland, the U.S. stock market and the U.S. dollar fell, gold prices--considered as the ultimate "safe haven"--increased, and the cost of servicing U.S. debt went up. For now, U.S. President Donald Trump appears to be walking back his threats of kinetic action against Greenland, along with associated U.S. tariffs against the territory's defenders, but given the administration's frequent policy pivots, Copenhagen and Nuuk will likely remain on alert.
If the Trump team does put force back on the table, there is a high likelihood that international markets would react.
Investors and businesses should be concerned about any hostile takeover of Greenland, not because of the territory's economic weight per se, but because such a move would signal a profound disruption of the strategic assumptions that underpin the transatlantic economic and political order. The dispute over Greenland lies at the intersection of NATO credibility, Arctic governance, and critical infrastructure in the North Atlantic. A challenge to the territorial status quo there would immediately raise questions about alliance cohesion, escalation dynamics, and the reliability of existing security arrangements. Markets could (and seem to have already started to) interpret this not as an isolated incident, but as evidence of a broader erosion of geopolitical constraints that have long supported economic stability among advanced economies.
In this context, the European Union, and its retaliation against the United States or even its preventive action (aimed at modifying U.S. incentives and cost-benefit analysis) could emerge as a central economic actor, even if it remained a secondary military one. In a speech at Davos on January 20, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen unveiled a series of changes to streamline scaling for start-ups and to spur a more dynamic investment environment. In her concluding statement on Greenland, she noted, "our response will be unflinching, united and proportional. But beyond this, we have to be strategic about how we approach this issue." This tension--having to ready a retaliation tool kit while minimizing risk to the European economy--is top of mind for policymakers considering how to respond to U.S. threats over Greenland.
As geoeconomic analyst Tobias Gehrke argued in the context of possible actions that the European Union could have taken to confront U.S. tariffs, the European Commission has a variety of geoeconomic instruments that could be triggered--some for the first time--against its transatlantic ally. The EU goal, which could never rival the U.S. militarily, would be to increase the perceived U.S. cost of the invasion, hoping that more serious economic damage would deter President Trump from taking military action against its NATO ally.
The European Union could use its Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI), a geoeconomic tool designed to respond to aggression and coercion that was created in 2023 but has never been used. The ACI, which requires a qualified majority in the European Council, would allow the European Union to impose targeted countermeasures against disruptive foreign action designed to interfere with the European Union's sovereign policy choices, complementing traditional trade mechanisms. Its scope could be as wide as the European institutions consider necessary.
For example, it could be used to freeze assets and establish travel bans on U.S. citizens or entities (the United States has already banned the entry into the United States of a number of EU citizens, including former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton). It could also be focused on trade and investment by imposing tariffs, export restrictions, or blocking U.S. investments in the European Union.
European responses could range very concretely from tariffs on products from conservative congressional jurisdictions, such as Kentucky bourbon, to the denial of mergers and acquisitions. As Europe becomes more fertile ground for tech growth, triggering investment reviews could block U.S. companies from acquiring European firms, potentially imperiling long-term U.S. AI ambitions.
Short of invoking the ACI, the European Union could pursue other tariff measures. As part of ongoing bilateral trade negotiations, the European Union had extended until February 5, 2026, a range of retaliatory tariffs on U.S. products that amount to Euros93 billion ($108 billion). Removing those exemptions could reinstate tariffs on a host of products, ranging from aviation inputs to wine and spirits.
Given the European Union's role as a regulatory superpower and one of the world's largest markets, these measures could have extraterritorial effects, shaping corporate behavior well beyond Europe. For markets, the key signal would be that geopolitical considerations are once again overriding efficiency and predictability in global trade, an environment in which uncertainty rises, investment horizons shorten, and risk premia rise.
A transatlantic trade tool exchange could also reverberate across insurance markets. Whereas insurance companies have long priced in risks surrounding geopolitical hotspots, such as the Taiwan Strait, pricing in intra-NATO disputes would be unthinkable and would likely cause major revisions to risk underwriting, for example, the risk that vessels crossing the Atlantic encounter military danger.
Financial instruments would further amplify the economic shock. The European Union could restrict access to European capital markets, limit financing and insurance for designated entities, and increase scrutiny of transactions linked to exposed sectors. Furthermore, if EU member states were to aggressively start to unload their massive holdings of U.S. treasuries, it would have direct impacts on the ability of the U.S. government to efficiently fund its existing debt, with ramifications across the U.S. economy. Europeans also own approximately $8 trillion in U.S. bonds and equities, according to a Deutsche Bank report released recently that suggested Europeans could sell off these assets. At Davos, Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said, "This notion that Europeans would be selling U.S. assets came from a single analyst at Deutsche Bank." Secretary Bessent also said the CEO of Deutsche Bank had since called to distance the bank from that report. However, on January 20, 2026, Danish pension fund AkademikerPension announced it would sell $100 million in U.S. treasuries.
A European flash sale of U.S. government debt, however, would be much more effective if it were combined with the issuance of large quantities of euro-denominated sovereign bonds. Several recent proposals explain how this could be done effectively and without an increase in EU debt levels.
Additionally, the European Union's digital and competition framework could provide a further--and politically sensitive--channel of economic pressure. The enforcement of the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act, including the imposition of substantial fines on large U.S. technology companies and platforms, could take on heightened strategic significance in a context of severe transatlantic tension. While formally grounded in competition and consumer-protection objectives, aggressive or accelerated enforcement would be perceived by markets as part of a broader geopolitical response, increasing risk for major U.S. firms and potentially affecting valuations, cross-border data flows, and investment strategies in the digital economy.
U.S. technology firms, including very large online platforms (VLOPs), have enjoyed tremendous success in European markets. With a population of 450 million, a diversification away from U.S. VLOPs could cause lasting damage to platforms. Cloud service providers have also been exceptionally successful in Europe. U.S. cloud service providers account for roughly 70 percent of the market in Europe. A growing sense that U.S. tech companies represent a vulnerability rather than an asset could invite long-term diversification and de-risking, imperiling one of the core functions that supports U.S. geopolitical power abroad.
In a similar vein, the European Union could try to use its climate-related regulatory framework to go after the profits of large U.S. multinational energy companies. While the European Union ultimately decided to weaken the most stringent elements of its initially proposed Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Drive legislation--in part due to vocal and sustained criticism from U.S. firms--it could turn to earlier forms of the legislation as a means of expanding its tool kit to respond to aggressive U.S. moves against European territory.
If the European Union were to conclude that a U.S. seizure of Greenland was irreversible, the long-term implications for EU financial institutions' deep entanglement with the dollar system could be profound. Already, European governments, the European Central Bank, and major European financial institutions are debating the need for greater European sovereignty and strategic autonomy over cross-border payment systems. They are also working to increase the international role of the euro, as a potential challenger to the dollar in the context in which U.S. debt is high (and rising) and there are doubts about the future independence of the Federal Reserve.
In this scenario, the threat of U.S. sanctions disrupting European access to the international dollar system will dramatically speed up European efforts to develop, implement, and push the widespread adoption of European-owned and controlled financial transaction platforms. The key players in determining the future of the European financial sector could choose to elevate any of the following options politically: the digital euro--a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC); a private sector-developed digital payments platform designed to rival U.S. giants like Visa or Mastercard; the creation of a highly liquid European safe asset in the context of the consolidation of the capital markets union, or euro-denominated stablecoins to supplant U.S. dollar-linked start-ups like Circle and Tether. Regardless of what happens in Greenland, these conversations are already taking place and are likely to continue (and intensify).
Europe has spent decades building economic leverage without having to recognize it as a tool of geopolitical consequence. Now it faces a moment of reckoning. The ACI, Digital Decade enforcement, and financial independence are instruments of economic statecraft. The current compact could end not with a joint statement, but with tariffs, frozen assets, and the hum of servers routing payments around New York instead of through it. The European Union will suffer economic damage, but these actions could show that European capitals are willing to walk the walk and create a truly geopolitical Europe.
* * *
Federico Steinberg is a visiting fellow with the Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Emily Benson is a senior associate (non-resident) with the Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program at CSIS. Nicholas Fenton is an associate director and associate fellow with the Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program at CSIS.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-could-europe-respond-future-us-threats-greenland
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: Building a True Trusted Trade Partnership With the United Kingdom
WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Jan. 22, 2026:
* * *
Building a True Trusted Trade Partnership with the United Kingdom
By Meredith Broadbent
On December 1, 2025, the United States and the United Kingdom struck a win-win agreement for innovation, bilateral investment, and growth in the pharmaceutical and medical technology sectors. In what is the third elaboration of the U.S.-UK Economic Prosperity Deal (EPD), first announced by leaders on May 5, 2025, the new deal, called the Agreement in Principle with the United
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Jan. 22, 2026:
* * *
Building a True Trusted Trade Partnership with the United Kingdom
By Meredith Broadbent
On December 1, 2025, the United States and the United Kingdom struck a win-win agreement for innovation, bilateral investment, and growth in the pharmaceutical and medical technology sectors. In what is the third elaboration of the U.S.-UK Economic Prosperity Deal (EPD), first announced by leaders on May 5, 2025, the new deal, called the Agreement in Principle with the UnitedKingdom on Pharmaceutical Pricing, moves a step closer toward establishing a true, trusted trade partner relationship with the United Kingdom and should be applauded for what it accomplishes.
The December 1 deal allows the United Kingdom to export pharmaceutical and medical products to the U.S. duty-free by exempting these products from tariffs, including future action under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 or Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. In exchange, the United Kingdom has made a precedent-setting commitment to increase its National Health Service (NHS) budget by 25 percent for new drugs, aiming to bring the country's spending on new drugs closer to that of the United States.
* * *
Background
The NHS enforces several key policies to limit UK government expenditures on branded medicines, including (1) cost-effectiveness thresholds, and (2) price cuts (taxes on companies) through the Voluntary Scheme for Branded Medicines Pricing and Access (VPAG).
Cost-effectiveness thresholds, set by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), are used to determine the level of government payment based on how much benefit a drug provides in relation to its price. NICE economists calculate quality-adjusted life year (QALY), which is an estimate of how many years of good health a drug can be expected to provide. The current QALY threshold of 20,000 pounds to 30,000 pounds allocated per year has been in place with no change since 1999. NICE generally won't pay for a drug if the pharmaceutical company refuses to provide the drug at a price within the threshold. The agreement commits the United Kingdom to increasing this threshold from 25,000 pounds to 35,000 pounds starting in April 2026.
In addition to low reimbursement prices by the NHS, U.S. pharmaceutical companies have been subject to tax assessments by the UK government, which are aimed at ensuring that total government health expenditures do not exceed a pre-determined budget cap. Pharmaceutical companies are subject to steep so-called claw-back taxes on sales of innovative medicines under the VPAG when spending on branded drugs exceeds the cap.
In the agreement, the United Kingdom has committed to reducing the repayment rate owed by companies under the current VPAG scheme from a peak of 25.5 percent to 15 percent starting in 2026, with the rate capped at or below 15 percent for the life of the scheme.
As geopolitical friction with China escalates, and the goal of securing medical supply lines takes center stage, the Trump administration and many Republican members of Congress take the view that the U.S. healthcare system bears a disproportionate burden of subsidizing pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) that is used in the UK market as well as throughout the world. Low levels of pricing reimbursement and VPAG claw-backs have functioned as serious nontariff trade barriers aimed at the U.S. industry exporting to the United Kingdom and have enabled the United Kingdom to rely on medical innovations developed through U.S. R&D efforts.
Breaking New Ground
However, when 35 members of Congress and 18 senators wrote U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Jamieson Greer in July, urging him to "ensure foreign nations pay their fair share toward the cost of pharmaceutical research and development," few trade practitioners and industry experts saw this as a realistic negotiating objective for trade agreements. For years, the pharmaceutical industry has petitioned unsuccessfully for USTR to achieve improved market access in the form of fair pricing for reimbursements of its products through government healthcare systems. The executive order of May 12, 2025, appears to have shifted the U.S. government's focus, making drug pricing and securing "fair share" contributions of trading partners to global pharmaceutical R&D costs a key priority in trade negotiations.
The perceived political sensitivity of trade negotiations with the United States, encompassing domestic healthcare spending and drug pricing, and the impact of higher drug reimbursements on government healthcare budgets, has heretofore made trading partners--even those embarking on comprehensive free trade agreement (FTA) negotiations with the United States--extremely reluctant to accede to U.S. pressure to make concessions in this area. While the U.S.-Australia and U.S.-South Korea FTAs included provisions to boost the transparency of government pricing and reimbursement processes and ensure a right of appeal of pricing decisions to an independent body, these objectives were abandoned by the Obama administration in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations.
Key Elements of the Agreement in Principle
While the written text of the agreement has not yet been made public, the core of this agreement, as reflected in government documents, is a UK commitment to boost NHS reimbursement prices for new pharmaceutical products. As discussed above, this will involve a 25 percent increase in the QALY benchmark for new drugs to pound sterling25,000-35,000 per year. The increase will apply to new National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technology appraisals and those currently in progress, but will not be retroactive for drugs already on the market. According to NICE, the agency currently recommends 91 percent of the treatments it evaluates, around 70 per year. Estimates are that raising the payment threshold will mean approving up to five more drugs per year. Additionally, the UK government will ensure that higher prices for new medicines "are not materially eroded" by the rebates payable under the United Kingdom's VPAG scheme.
In return, the United States has promised to exempt new UK-origin pharmaceuticals, pharmaceutical ingredients, and medical technology from Section 232 tariffs for at least three years and refrain from targeting UK pharmaceutical pricing practices in any future Section 301 investigation--meaning that pharmaceuticals from the United Kingdom will enjoy duty-free access to the U.S. market.
Secure Medical Supply Chains and the Administration's Most-Favored-Nation Drug Pricing Scheme
The U.S.-UK agreement on pharmaceutical pricing stands as an important precedent as the United States works to rebuild secure medical supply chains with sustainable revenue streams to support the development of innovative medicines to combat cancer and other diseases and guard against the next pandemic. It is also a breakthrough for the president's MFN drug pricing scheme, which aims to both lower U.S. drug prices and boost foreign prices. The deal also puts pressure on other major drug exporters, such as the European Union, to seek similar deals.
In the new world of tough competitive and security threats from China, where steady capital investment in R&D is essential, the agreement, if implemented, represents an important breakthrough that will help sustain and grow a foundational industry in both countries. UK officials have hailed the agreement as a vital economic and health achievement, aimed at securing medicine access for patients and boosting the United Kingdom's life sciences sector. The United Kingdom is currently the only country to have secured zero-percent U.S. tariffs on pharmaceutical and medical technology products for the duration of President Trump's term, safeguarding a sector worth over pound sterling11 billion annually to the United Kingdom. UK Business and Trade Secretary Peter Kyle said, "This deal guarantees that UK pharmaceutical exports... will enter the [United States] tariff free, protecting jobs, boosting investment and paving the way for the United Kingdom to become a global hub for life sciences."
UK Science and Technology Secretary Liz Kendall noted that the "deal will help ensure UK patients get the cutting-edge medicines they need sooner, and our world-leading UK firms keep developing the treatments that can change lives." The deal will reinforce confidence in the United Kingdom as an investment destination, confidence that had been wavering as firms like AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb struggled to be competitive in the old UK regulatory environment. Many investment decisions in the United Kingdom were on hold, and there was awareness in the government that firms might begin shuttering certain operations.
Implementation Challenges
The trade negotiating environment is hectic and complex as the administration pushes to conclude simultaneous bilateral trade negotiations with key trading partners all over the world. But notable wins are being scored that will stand as important precedents for U.S. industry.
The new structure that the administration is pursuing on trade, while still emerging, so far seems to be iterative in nature, with sectoral accomplishments announced as they are agreed to. This process contrasts with the traditional U.S. method of aiming for comprehensive agreements in which "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed." The old approach, as slow and cumbersome as it was, did result in enforceable agreements, often knitted together by cross-sectoral, bilateral trade-offs.
If no approval of the U.S.-UK Economic Prosperity Deal by Congress is contemplated, including earlier gains for U.S. beef and ethanol exports contained in the EPD, members of Congress will need to focus on how implementation will be monitored and assured, particularly as governments change. Congress could exercise its authority to pull back on tariff benefits in the event the United Kingdom fails to follow through on its commitments.
This U.S.-UK pharmaceutical deal could be a big win in terms of building a true, trusted trade partnership so that the two countries can lead in R&D spending, build global market share, and work together to diversify the supply of critical inputs. Much will depend on whether Congress takes a role in monitoring implementation, particularly as governments change. If Congress and the Trump administration work together, the agreement is a precedent that should stand the test of time, even as governments turn over and struggle to fund necessary investments.
* * *
Meredith Broadbent serves as a senior adviser (non-resident) with the Economics Program and Scholl Chair in International Business at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/building-true-trusted-trade-partnership-united-kingdom
[Category: ThinkTank]
America First Policy Institute Issues Commentary: Trump Owned Davos
WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following commentary on Jan. 23, 2026, to American Greatness:
* * *
Trump Owned Davos
By Fred Fleitz
European leaders worked themselves up into full-blown hysteria before President Trump spoke to the World Economic Forum this week with wild claims that Trump planned a U.S. invasion of Greenland that would destroy the NATO alliance and the rules-based international order. A couple of dozen European troops were hurriedly sent to Greenland. French President Macron called for an emergency G7 summit. European leaders also discussed
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following commentary on Jan. 23, 2026, to American Greatness:
* * *
Trump Owned Davos
By Fred Fleitz
European leaders worked themselves up into full-blown hysteria before President Trump spoke to the World Economic Forum this week with wild claims that Trump planned a U.S. invasion of Greenland that would destroy the NATO alliance and the rules-based international order. A couple of dozen European troops were hurriedly sent to Greenland. French President Macron called for an emergency G7 summit. European leaders also discussedimplementing a "bazooka" trade retaliation against the United States.
But when Trump spoke at the Davos Summit on Wednesday, these hair-on-fire claims melted away in the face of his masterful speech, which laid out in depth his successful record of promoting global security and ending wars. The president also turned the tables on European leaders by challenging them over policies that have endangered their security and the welfare of their citizens.
Trump mocked Europe's reliance on windmills and green energy, noting that electricity prices have soared by 139% in some European countries, and criticized the UK for energy policies that make it impossible to drill for oil in the North Sea.
To read the full article, click here (https://amgreatness.com/2026/01/23/trump-owned-davos/).
* * *
Fred Fleitz is originally from Lansdowne, Pennsylvania, and serves as Vice Chair of AFPI's American Security.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/trump-owned-davos
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI Celebrates the End of Human Fetal Tissue in Taxpayer-Funded Research
WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on Jan. 23, 2026:
* * *
AFPI Celebrates the End of Human Fetal Tissue in Taxpayer-Funded Research
Today, the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) released the following statement:
"AFPI applauds the NIH for ending the use of human fetal tissue in taxpayer funded, NIH supported research. Instead, the Trump Administration is advancing innovative technologies to conduct more effective bio medical testing without the cost to unborn life. This decision marks a turning point for gold-standard science in the
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on Jan. 23, 2026:
* * *
AFPI Celebrates the End of Human Fetal Tissue in Taxpayer-Funded Research
Today, the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) released the following statement:
"AFPI applauds the NIH for ending the use of human fetal tissue in taxpayer funded, NIH supported research. Instead, the Trump Administration is advancing innovative technologies to conduct more effective bio medical testing without the cost to unborn life. This decision marks a turning point for gold-standard science in theUnited States.
For too long, the abortion industry has insisted that any breakthroughs in science rely on elective abortions; instead, Director Bhattacharya has shown that you can be pro-life and pro-science. On this 52nd annual March for Life, we celebrate the advances in medicine that are done without harm to the most innocent or promote a culture of death."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-celebrates-the-end-of-human-fetal-tissue-in-taxpayer-funded-research
[Category: ThinkTank]
"Not Another Penny" for DHS Funding in Next Senate Vote
WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 [Category: ThinkTank] -- Common Cause posted the following news release:
* * *
"Not Another Penny" for DHS Funding in Next Senate Vote
*
WASHINGTON, DC - Today, for the second time in two weeks, federal agents murdered an American citizen in Minnesota for exercising their constitutional right.
Statement of Common Cause President & CEO Virginia Kase Solomon
President Trump's federal agents shot and killed another citizen, further evidence of his failure to keep America's cities safe. The American public deserves nothing less than full accountability and transparency for
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 [Category: ThinkTank] -- Common Cause posted the following news release:
* * *
"Not Another Penny" for DHS Funding in Next Senate Vote
*
WASHINGTON, DC - Today, for the second time in two weeks, federal agents murdered an American citizen in Minnesota for exercising their constitutional right.
Statement of Common Cause President & CEO Virginia Kase Solomon
President Trump's federal agents shot and killed another citizen, further evidence of his failure to keep America's cities safe. The American public deserves nothing less than full accountability and transparency fortoday's murder.
Once again, one million Common Cause members are calling on President Trump to remove ICE from our communities to end the violence.
And our message to the U.S. Senate: not another penny for the Department of Homeland Security until ICE is removed and there is an immediate investigation.
Statement of Common Cause's Minnesota Executive Director Annastacia Belladona-Carrera
Today's killing of another Minnesota community member is a terrible and completely avoidable tragedy. Minnesotans have a constitutional right to free speech and criticism of its government without fear of violence or murder. We call on federal authorities to immediately de-escalate and halt enforcement actions that endanger the public, and we urge Congress and the Trump Administration to rein in operations that are escalating into violence. Minnesota and every state deserve safety, due process, and accountability, not intimidation and impunity. Democracy requires accountability, especially when the government uses force in public space.
***
Original text here: https://www.commoncause.org/press/not-another-penny-for-dhs-funding-in-next-senate-vote/
