Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Think Tanks
Featured Stories
Rand: Biosecurity in the Age of AI - Q&A With Steph Guerra
SANTA MONICA, California, Oct. 9 -- Rand issued the following Q&A on Oct. 8 2026, involving molecular biologist and biosecurity expert Steph Guerra:
* * *
Biosecurity in the Age of AI: Q&A with Steph Guerra
Oct 8, 2026
Steph Guerra is an expert in AI, security, and biotechnology. The question that drives her work at RAND may be one of the most consequential for this moment in the AI era: How can we harness the full potential of AI for science and medicine--but also ensure it never helps anyone build a biological weapon?
Her career began in the lab. She's a molecular biologist by training whose ... Show Full Article SANTA MONICA, California, Oct. 9 -- Rand issued the following Q&A on Oct. 8 2026, involving molecular biologist and biosecurity expert Steph Guerra: * * * Biosecurity in the Age of AI: Q&A with Steph Guerra Oct 8, 2026 Steph Guerra is an expert in AI, security, and biotechnology. The question that drives her work at RAND may be one of the most consequential for this moment in the AI era: How can we harness the full potential of AI for science and medicine--but also ensure it never helps anyone build a biological weapon? Her career began in the lab. She's a molecular biologist by training whoseearliest research focused on preventing cancer. But she's been working on issues of AI safety since long before "large language model" was a household term. She now leads RAND's portfolio of research at the intersection of AI and biotechnology.
In a recent study, Guerra and a team of researchers tested so-called "open-weight" AI models. These models are made publicly available for anyone to download, run, and modify. That can make them more transparent and accessible than hosted models like Claude or ChatGPT. But it also creates concerns about how they could be misused.
Q: What did you find in your study of open-weight models and biosecurity risks?
A: It's important to say, first, that these open-weight models are a central part of the AI ecosystem. They support open research; they allow organizations or people to deploy their own models without relying on third parties. But there are some potential downsides. Once they're released, their developers can no longer enforce safety controls, and the underlying model can be customized for beneficial or potentially harmful purposes.
We evaluated a few different open-weight models. We found that their capabilities are quite comparable to those of frontier models. But we also found that tampering with them to remove their safeguards was actually pretty trivial and low-cost. Obtaining a highly capable open-weight model, and then removing the safeguards that tell it to refuse certain questions, is within reach of many capable actors.
Does that mean someone could use these models to help plan a biological attack?
Just getting information out of a model is one small step on what would be a long pathway to carrying out an attack. A bad actor would still have to obtain the materials; design, build, and test the biological agent; weaponize it; and then release it. There are technical, operational, and motivational barriers along that entire pathway.
One of the real challenges we have is that it's difficult to assess how an AI model could help. Could it motivate someone to cause harm? Could it help with the technical aspects, using the appropriate tools to design and enhance an agent? We can all agree that people should not be able to use AI models to develop a bioweapon. But it's really hard to test the end-to-end risk of that. And so we rely on these snapshots that our team and others build to understand where and how a bad actor could use AI.
What are some practical steps that AI developers can take to reduce the risk?
The ideal would be to build safeguards that are tamper-resistant. There has been some work on that, but it's unclear whether we'll ever be able to get there. If you think about it, closed-weight models are not tamper-free either. We always have to assume there will be ways to circumvent any single intervention put in place.
So then what does an effective biosecurity strategy look like?
You need to create friction along the entire pathway. Our team looked at this problem and just recently developed a multi-layered strategy that would prevent a pandemic-scale biological attack.
It has four key theories of defense. One is managing access to information through things like stronger model safeguards and managed access programs. The second is preventing bad actors from getting access to the materials they would need to create a biological weapon, the DNA and RNA, such as through gene synthesis screening. The third is detecting misuse early through real-time monitoring. And the fourth is being able to rapidly respond to and attribute an attack, to deter a nefarious actor from attempting one in the first place.
Model safeguards might stop a lone actor, but by themselves, they won't slow down a sophisticated state with a bioweapons program. Early detection, early attribution--that deterrence layer--might. That's the challenge. There's never going to be a single silver-bullet solution that can stop all threats. We need all of these layers.
How do you avoid stifling legitimate research while still preventing malicious uses?
Biology is a dual-use endeavor. The same AI capabilities that might cause harm could also be incredibly useful for developing medical innovations. The goal here is managed access and not blanket prohibitions. It's to precisely define who a legitimate user is and then ensure those individuals have access to the most powerful tools and data they need.
There are some useful precedents. There are managed-access frameworks to address privacy and security concerns with human genome data, for example. It doesn't foreclose legitimate research, but it also doesn't put the data out there for anyone to misuse. Part of our philosophy at RAND is that the scientific community needs to be part of developing the solutions. AI safeguards are only going to work if they preserve meaningful utility for beneficial research.
Was there a moment in your career that put you on the path to doing what you do now?
A few years ago, I was part of a small federal team doing red-teaming experiments with AI models. I was watching these models answer questions about biological attacks, and they were providing really creative, useful information, fluently, and with a lot of confidence. And I remember it just struck me: We needed to be doing a lot more to monitor and track these risks.
I started my career as a cancer biologist. And I kept running into this reality that we pour years and resources into developing treatments, but not as much into preventing cancer in the first place. So this idea of focusing on prevention, on getting ahead of risks so we're not scrambling to respond later, has just followed me through my career.
* * *
Steph Guerra is a molecular biologist and biosecurity expert with over a decade of experience translating complex technical risks into strategic insights for changemakers across government, industry, and academia.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2026/10/biosecurity-in-the-age-of-ai-qa-with-steph-guerra.html
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Biosecurity in the Age of AI: Q&A with Steph Guerra
Oct 8, 2026
Steph Guerra is an expert in AI, security, and biotechnology. The question that drives her work at RAND may be one of the most consequential for this moment in the AI era: How can we harness the full potential of AI for science and medicine--but also ensure it never helps anyone build a biological weapon?
Her career began in the lab. She's a molecular biologist by training whose ... Show Full Article SANTA MONICA, California, Oct. 9 -- Rand issued the following Q&A on Oct. 8 2026, involving molecular biologist and biosecurity expert Steph Guerra: * * * Biosecurity in the Age of AI: Q&A with Steph Guerra Oct 8, 2026 Steph Guerra is an expert in AI, security, and biotechnology. The question that drives her work at RAND may be one of the most consequential for this moment in the AI era: How can we harness the full potential of AI for science and medicine--but also ensure it never helps anyone build a biological weapon? Her career began in the lab. She's a molecular biologist by training whoseearliest research focused on preventing cancer. But she's been working on issues of AI safety since long before "large language model" was a household term. She now leads RAND's portfolio of research at the intersection of AI and biotechnology.
In a recent study, Guerra and a team of researchers tested so-called "open-weight" AI models. These models are made publicly available for anyone to download, run, and modify. That can make them more transparent and accessible than hosted models like Claude or ChatGPT. But it also creates concerns about how they could be misused.
Q: What did you find in your study of open-weight models and biosecurity risks?
A: It's important to say, first, that these open-weight models are a central part of the AI ecosystem. They support open research; they allow organizations or people to deploy their own models without relying on third parties. But there are some potential downsides. Once they're released, their developers can no longer enforce safety controls, and the underlying model can be customized for beneficial or potentially harmful purposes.
We evaluated a few different open-weight models. We found that their capabilities are quite comparable to those of frontier models. But we also found that tampering with them to remove their safeguards was actually pretty trivial and low-cost. Obtaining a highly capable open-weight model, and then removing the safeguards that tell it to refuse certain questions, is within reach of many capable actors.
Does that mean someone could use these models to help plan a biological attack?
Just getting information out of a model is one small step on what would be a long pathway to carrying out an attack. A bad actor would still have to obtain the materials; design, build, and test the biological agent; weaponize it; and then release it. There are technical, operational, and motivational barriers along that entire pathway.
One of the real challenges we have is that it's difficult to assess how an AI model could help. Could it motivate someone to cause harm? Could it help with the technical aspects, using the appropriate tools to design and enhance an agent? We can all agree that people should not be able to use AI models to develop a bioweapon. But it's really hard to test the end-to-end risk of that. And so we rely on these snapshots that our team and others build to understand where and how a bad actor could use AI.
What are some practical steps that AI developers can take to reduce the risk?
The ideal would be to build safeguards that are tamper-resistant. There has been some work on that, but it's unclear whether we'll ever be able to get there. If you think about it, closed-weight models are not tamper-free either. We always have to assume there will be ways to circumvent any single intervention put in place.
So then what does an effective biosecurity strategy look like?
You need to create friction along the entire pathway. Our team looked at this problem and just recently developed a multi-layered strategy that would prevent a pandemic-scale biological attack.
It has four key theories of defense. One is managing access to information through things like stronger model safeguards and managed access programs. The second is preventing bad actors from getting access to the materials they would need to create a biological weapon, the DNA and RNA, such as through gene synthesis screening. The third is detecting misuse early through real-time monitoring. And the fourth is being able to rapidly respond to and attribute an attack, to deter a nefarious actor from attempting one in the first place.
Model safeguards might stop a lone actor, but by themselves, they won't slow down a sophisticated state with a bioweapons program. Early detection, early attribution--that deterrence layer--might. That's the challenge. There's never going to be a single silver-bullet solution that can stop all threats. We need all of these layers.
How do you avoid stifling legitimate research while still preventing malicious uses?
Biology is a dual-use endeavor. The same AI capabilities that might cause harm could also be incredibly useful for developing medical innovations. The goal here is managed access and not blanket prohibitions. It's to precisely define who a legitimate user is and then ensure those individuals have access to the most powerful tools and data they need.
There are some useful precedents. There are managed-access frameworks to address privacy and security concerns with human genome data, for example. It doesn't foreclose legitimate research, but it also doesn't put the data out there for anyone to misuse. Part of our philosophy at RAND is that the scientific community needs to be part of developing the solutions. AI safeguards are only going to work if they preserve meaningful utility for beneficial research.
Was there a moment in your career that put you on the path to doing what you do now?
A few years ago, I was part of a small federal team doing red-teaming experiments with AI models. I was watching these models answer questions about biological attacks, and they were providing really creative, useful information, fluently, and with a lot of confidence. And I remember it just struck me: We needed to be doing a lot more to monitor and track these risks.
I started my career as a cancer biologist. And I kept running into this reality that we pour years and resources into developing treatments, but not as much into preventing cancer in the first place. So this idea of focusing on prevention, on getting ahead of risks so we're not scrambling to respond later, has just followed me through my career.
* * *
Steph Guerra is a molecular biologist and biosecurity expert with over a decade of experience translating complex technical risks into strategic insights for changemakers across government, industry, and academia.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2026/10/biosecurity-in-the-age-of-ai-qa-with-steph-guerra.html
[Category: ThinkTank]
Jamestown Foundation Issues Commentary: 'Russian Citizens of Tajik Origin' Pose New National Challenges for Moscow
WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on Oct. 8, 2026, in the foundation's Eurasia Daily Monitor:
* * *
'Russian Citizens of Tajik Origin' Pose New National Challenges for Moscow
Paul Goble
Executive Summary:
* A large new nationality is emerging in the Russian Federation, a more than 800,000-strong group now called "Russian citizens of Tajik origin," which Moscow is struggling to manage and that challenges how the Russian government will deal with others.
* Culturally and linguistically Tajik but legally Russian, Russian citizens of Tajik origin cannot ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on Oct. 8, 2026, in the foundation's Eurasia Daily Monitor: * * * 'Russian Citizens of Tajik Origin' Pose New National Challenges for Moscow Paul Goble Executive Summary: * A large new nationality is emerging in the Russian Federation, a more than 800,000-strong group now called "Russian citizens of Tajik origin," which Moscow is struggling to manage and that challenges how the Russian government will deal with others. * Culturally and linguistically Tajik but legally Russian, Russian citizens of Tajik origin cannoteasily be forced to leave, forced to assimilate, or blocked from forming ethnic enclaves except at the price of Moscow's relationship with Tajikistan and its base there.
* Moscow is addressing these problems by promoting the political careers of some Russian citizens of Tajik origin. This approach may help in the short term but is likely to trigger larger problems in the future.
-
More than 800,000 Tajiks have taken Russian citizenship over the last decade under a 1996 agreement that gives them a more or less automatic right to that status. This allows them to live without restrictions in the Russian Federation and to vote in Russian elections (see EDM, July 23). The group is now so large--bigger than all but a handful of non-Russian nationalities of the Russian Federation--that some are now referring to it as a new nationality. "Russian citizens of Tajik origin" are culturally and linguistically Tajik, at least in private, but full-fledged citizens of the Russian Federation in public (Stan Radar, October 2). This group is a subset of the much larger group of ethnic Tajiks living and working in the Russian Federation, many of whom lack Russian citizenship. Moscow can and has stripped some Tajiks of Russian citizenship and deported them to Tajikistan, as well as adopted other harsh measures to get them to leave, especially in the wake of the Crocus City shopping center bombings in March 2024. The Russian government, however, has learned it can do so only at the cost of relations with Tajikistan. The former Soviet republic in Central Asia still hosts an important Russian military base and has reacted sharply to such Russian actions, despite remaining heavily dependent on remittances from Tajiks working in the Russian Federation (see EDM, May 2, October 22, 2024; Window on Eurasia, August 11, 2024).
As a result, Russian citizens of Tajik origin are becoming more important. Moscow is seeking to integrate them by encouraging their participation in Russian legislatures at all levels and even celebrating the re-election of a member of this new national community to the Russian State Duma (Stan Radar, October 2). In the short term, that may help Russian President Vladimir Putin's regime reduce anger in Dushanbe and among members of this nationality in Russia. These actions suggest that Moscow views Russian citizens of Tajik origin as a group deserving a special status. Precisely because of that, however, this latest Moscow move may backfire. Russian citizens of Tajik origin could become more politically conscious, and demand and expand efforts to form the ethnic enclaves that many Russians fear are undermining the common legal space of their country (see EDM, April 10, 2025). If so, the Putin regime is likely to respond with repression. That will not only harm Moscow's ties with Tajikistan and its base in that country as well as its relations with the Russian citizens of Tajik origin but also affect the attitudes and strategies of the other non-Russian peoples of the Russian Federation who may lack some of that group's resources but who want many of the same things (Window on Eurasia, September 27, 2023; see EDM, May 2, 2024; Radio Svoboda, March 2).
One reason this new nationality has attracted relatively little attention so far is that its members live widely dispersed across the country, in various industrial centers, rather than concentrated in the capitals. The Russian government has stopped publishing data on both the location of these ethnic Tajiks and on their participation as candidates in elections. Those shortcomings, however, are compensated in part by an interview Mukim Mayboliyev, the head of the Tajik community in Tver oblast, gave to Tajikistan journalist Bakhtiyor Khamdamov of the StanRadar portal and also by that outlet's coverage of the recent re-election of Rakhim Azimov as a United Russia deputy in the Russian State Duma (Stan Radar, October 2).
According to Mayboliyev, "Tajiks who have taken Russian citizenship are ever more actively participating in the social and political life of the country." This pattern is especially noticeable among those born in Russia or who grew up there. Such people, he continues, "are preserving Tajik culture, language, and customs at home but outside the home are ever more confidently taking part in the life of their new motherland." These people are equally comfortable in Tajik and Russian life and see no need to choose. Instead, they combine these two cultures into a single, distinctive whole. Mayboliyev suggests dominance elsewhere, something Moscow would likely welcome. This symbiotic combination almost certainly means these cultures will sometimes play roles beyond their accustomed ones, affecting how Tajiks behave in both places, a development neither Moscow nor Tajiks with Russian citizenship may like at all.
According to the Tver activist, the Tajik community in Tver works closely with the oblast administration. Khamdamov suggests, however, that it is still too early "to speak about massive political representation" of the community there or elsewhere in the Russian Federation. No data is available on how many Tajiks now serve in regional or municipal legislatures or governments. Moscow does not collect, or at least release, such data, and information about birthplace alone is not a good indicator of nationality. For example, the Tajik journalist notes that Viktor Bout, the notorious arms dealer who was imprisoned and then released in the United States and who now serves in the Ulyanovsk legislature, was born in Dushanbe but is in no way connected with Tajik culture. "It is possible," Khamdamov continues, "that there are more people with Tajik roots in local governments," but that cannot be confirmed, which he says may be a good thing because it means that their participation in politics is not based on ethnicity but on the ideas they support (Stan Radar, October 2).
The journalist mentions Rakhim Azimov, a Russian citizen of Tajik origin in the Russian State Duma. Born in 1964 in Shurab, a small city in northern Tajikistan, he studied in Leningrad and worked in the Kirov oblast government. In 2015, he became a deputy in the region's legislative assembly. In 2016, he was elected to the Russian Duma as a United Russia deputy. In 2021, he was re-elected, and last month, he was re-elected again. Tajik media outlets, Khamdamov says, have written that Azimov has not forgotten Tajikistan or Shurab and has even helped build a school in the city where he was born. "Azimov has shown that it is possible to follow such a path," the Tajik journalist says, concluding that others among the rising generation of Russian citizens of Tajik origin are likely to do the same.
For now, there is little evidence that Russian citizens of Tajik origin have become a fully self-conscious nation. If Russia enters a new period of turbulence during the looming succession struggle, that will likely change quickly, affecting not only its members but also other non-Russians in the Russian Federation, Moscow's relationship with Tajikistan, and thus the future of the Russian state itself.
* * *
Paul Goble is a longtime specialist on ethnic and religious questions in Eurasia. Most recently, he was director of research and publications at the Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/russian-citizens-of-tajik-origin-pose-new-national-challenges-for-moscow/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
'Russian Citizens of Tajik Origin' Pose New National Challenges for Moscow
Paul Goble
Executive Summary:
* A large new nationality is emerging in the Russian Federation, a more than 800,000-strong group now called "Russian citizens of Tajik origin," which Moscow is struggling to manage and that challenges how the Russian government will deal with others.
* Culturally and linguistically Tajik but legally Russian, Russian citizens of Tajik origin cannot ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on Oct. 8, 2026, in the foundation's Eurasia Daily Monitor: * * * 'Russian Citizens of Tajik Origin' Pose New National Challenges for Moscow Paul Goble Executive Summary: * A large new nationality is emerging in the Russian Federation, a more than 800,000-strong group now called "Russian citizens of Tajik origin," which Moscow is struggling to manage and that challenges how the Russian government will deal with others. * Culturally and linguistically Tajik but legally Russian, Russian citizens of Tajik origin cannoteasily be forced to leave, forced to assimilate, or blocked from forming ethnic enclaves except at the price of Moscow's relationship with Tajikistan and its base there.
* Moscow is addressing these problems by promoting the political careers of some Russian citizens of Tajik origin. This approach may help in the short term but is likely to trigger larger problems in the future.
-
More than 800,000 Tajiks have taken Russian citizenship over the last decade under a 1996 agreement that gives them a more or less automatic right to that status. This allows them to live without restrictions in the Russian Federation and to vote in Russian elections (see EDM, July 23). The group is now so large--bigger than all but a handful of non-Russian nationalities of the Russian Federation--that some are now referring to it as a new nationality. "Russian citizens of Tajik origin" are culturally and linguistically Tajik, at least in private, but full-fledged citizens of the Russian Federation in public (Stan Radar, October 2). This group is a subset of the much larger group of ethnic Tajiks living and working in the Russian Federation, many of whom lack Russian citizenship. Moscow can and has stripped some Tajiks of Russian citizenship and deported them to Tajikistan, as well as adopted other harsh measures to get them to leave, especially in the wake of the Crocus City shopping center bombings in March 2024. The Russian government, however, has learned it can do so only at the cost of relations with Tajikistan. The former Soviet republic in Central Asia still hosts an important Russian military base and has reacted sharply to such Russian actions, despite remaining heavily dependent on remittances from Tajiks working in the Russian Federation (see EDM, May 2, October 22, 2024; Window on Eurasia, August 11, 2024).
As a result, Russian citizens of Tajik origin are becoming more important. Moscow is seeking to integrate them by encouraging their participation in Russian legislatures at all levels and even celebrating the re-election of a member of this new national community to the Russian State Duma (Stan Radar, October 2). In the short term, that may help Russian President Vladimir Putin's regime reduce anger in Dushanbe and among members of this nationality in Russia. These actions suggest that Moscow views Russian citizens of Tajik origin as a group deserving a special status. Precisely because of that, however, this latest Moscow move may backfire. Russian citizens of Tajik origin could become more politically conscious, and demand and expand efforts to form the ethnic enclaves that many Russians fear are undermining the common legal space of their country (see EDM, April 10, 2025). If so, the Putin regime is likely to respond with repression. That will not only harm Moscow's ties with Tajikistan and its base in that country as well as its relations with the Russian citizens of Tajik origin but also affect the attitudes and strategies of the other non-Russian peoples of the Russian Federation who may lack some of that group's resources but who want many of the same things (Window on Eurasia, September 27, 2023; see EDM, May 2, 2024; Radio Svoboda, March 2).
One reason this new nationality has attracted relatively little attention so far is that its members live widely dispersed across the country, in various industrial centers, rather than concentrated in the capitals. The Russian government has stopped publishing data on both the location of these ethnic Tajiks and on their participation as candidates in elections. Those shortcomings, however, are compensated in part by an interview Mukim Mayboliyev, the head of the Tajik community in Tver oblast, gave to Tajikistan journalist Bakhtiyor Khamdamov of the StanRadar portal and also by that outlet's coverage of the recent re-election of Rakhim Azimov as a United Russia deputy in the Russian State Duma (Stan Radar, October 2).
According to Mayboliyev, "Tajiks who have taken Russian citizenship are ever more actively participating in the social and political life of the country." This pattern is especially noticeable among those born in Russia or who grew up there. Such people, he continues, "are preserving Tajik culture, language, and customs at home but outside the home are ever more confidently taking part in the life of their new motherland." These people are equally comfortable in Tajik and Russian life and see no need to choose. Instead, they combine these two cultures into a single, distinctive whole. Mayboliyev suggests dominance elsewhere, something Moscow would likely welcome. This symbiotic combination almost certainly means these cultures will sometimes play roles beyond their accustomed ones, affecting how Tajiks behave in both places, a development neither Moscow nor Tajiks with Russian citizenship may like at all.
According to the Tver activist, the Tajik community in Tver works closely with the oblast administration. Khamdamov suggests, however, that it is still too early "to speak about massive political representation" of the community there or elsewhere in the Russian Federation. No data is available on how many Tajiks now serve in regional or municipal legislatures or governments. Moscow does not collect, or at least release, such data, and information about birthplace alone is not a good indicator of nationality. For example, the Tajik journalist notes that Viktor Bout, the notorious arms dealer who was imprisoned and then released in the United States and who now serves in the Ulyanovsk legislature, was born in Dushanbe but is in no way connected with Tajik culture. "It is possible," Khamdamov continues, "that there are more people with Tajik roots in local governments," but that cannot be confirmed, which he says may be a good thing because it means that their participation in politics is not based on ethnicity but on the ideas they support (Stan Radar, October 2).
The journalist mentions Rakhim Azimov, a Russian citizen of Tajik origin in the Russian State Duma. Born in 1964 in Shurab, a small city in northern Tajikistan, he studied in Leningrad and worked in the Kirov oblast government. In 2015, he became a deputy in the region's legislative assembly. In 2016, he was elected to the Russian Duma as a United Russia deputy. In 2021, he was re-elected, and last month, he was re-elected again. Tajik media outlets, Khamdamov says, have written that Azimov has not forgotten Tajikistan or Shurab and has even helped build a school in the city where he was born. "Azimov has shown that it is possible to follow such a path," the Tajik journalist says, concluding that others among the rising generation of Russian citizens of Tajik origin are likely to do the same.
For now, there is little evidence that Russian citizens of Tajik origin have become a fully self-conscious nation. If Russia enters a new period of turbulence during the looming succession struggle, that will likely change quickly, affecting not only its members but also other non-Russians in the Russian Federation, Moscow's relationship with Tajikistan, and thus the future of the Russian state itself.
* * *
Paul Goble is a longtime specialist on ethnic and religious questions in Eurasia. Most recently, he was director of research and publications at the Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/russian-citizens-of-tajik-origin-pose-new-national-challenges-for-moscow/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: Revised Data Show That Minnesota's Economy is Performing Even Worse Than Previously Thought
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Oct. 9 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary:
* * *
Revised data show that Minnesota's economy is performing even worse than previously thought
Written by John Phelan | October 7, 2026
"When the facts change, I change my mind," the economist John Maynard Keynes is supposed to have said. "What do you do, sir?"
Back in April, I wrote: "It's official: Minnesota is now a below-average per capita income state."
"Minnesota has long been able to offer a "premium" ... Show Full Article MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Oct. 9 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary: * * * Revised data show that Minnesota's economy is performing even worse than previously thought Written by John Phelan | October 7, 2026 "When the facts change, I change my mind," the economist John Maynard Keynes is supposed to have said. "What do you do, sir?" Back in April, I wrote: "It's official: Minnesota is now a below-average per capita income state." "Minnesota has long been able to offer a "premium"for living in the state in terms of a level of GDP per capita which was above the national average. The weather might be brutal and the sports franchises likewise, but higher than avereage per capita incomes made up for that. As Figure 1 shows, as recently as 2014, GDP per capita in Minnesota was $4,658 above that of the United States generally, or $18,632 for a family of four. In every year since 2014, that permium has fallen until, last year, it vanished completely and Minnesota became, for the first time on record, a state with below average per capita GDP."
This fact is part of our "Wrong Track MN" initiative.
But facts -- or, more exactly, economic statistics -- can change. Last week, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released new numbers for Gross Domestic Product (GDP) across the states for 2018 to 2025 and the news was bad for Minnesota. As Table 1 shows, all of our state's revisions were down and we had the third biggest average reduction among the 50 states.
Table 1: Revisions to real GDP
The population numbers have not changed, however. The result is that, in recent years, our performance on the key metric of per capita GDP is even worse than I wrote in April.
As Figure 1 shows, it is now the case that as recently as 2014, GDP per capita in Minnesota was $4,658 above that of the United States generally, or $18,632 for a family of four. In every year but one since 2014, that permium has fallen until, in 2023, it vanished completely and Minnesota became, for the first time on record, a state with below average per capita GDP. In 2025, Minnesota's per capita GDP was $2,767 below that of the United States generally, or $11,068 for a family of four.
Figure 1: GDP per capita in Minnesota minus GDP per capita for the United States, 2017$
Minnesota's below average economic performance, which is worse than previously thought, is a long standing problem which must have deep rooted causes. In an upcoming report I will dig into the data to see what these are.
* * *
John Phelan is an Economist at the Center of the American Experiment.
john.phelan@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/revised-data-show-that-minnesotas-economy-is-performing-even-worse-than-previously-thought/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Revised data show that Minnesota's economy is performing even worse than previously thought
Written by John Phelan | October 7, 2026
"When the facts change, I change my mind," the economist John Maynard Keynes is supposed to have said. "What do you do, sir?"
Back in April, I wrote: "It's official: Minnesota is now a below-average per capita income state."
"Minnesota has long been able to offer a "premium" ... Show Full Article MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Oct. 9 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary: * * * Revised data show that Minnesota's economy is performing even worse than previously thought Written by John Phelan | October 7, 2026 "When the facts change, I change my mind," the economist John Maynard Keynes is supposed to have said. "What do you do, sir?" Back in April, I wrote: "It's official: Minnesota is now a below-average per capita income state." "Minnesota has long been able to offer a "premium"for living in the state in terms of a level of GDP per capita which was above the national average. The weather might be brutal and the sports franchises likewise, but higher than avereage per capita incomes made up for that. As Figure 1 shows, as recently as 2014, GDP per capita in Minnesota was $4,658 above that of the United States generally, or $18,632 for a family of four. In every year since 2014, that permium has fallen until, last year, it vanished completely and Minnesota became, for the first time on record, a state with below average per capita GDP."
This fact is part of our "Wrong Track MN" initiative.
But facts -- or, more exactly, economic statistics -- can change. Last week, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released new numbers for Gross Domestic Product (GDP) across the states for 2018 to 2025 and the news was bad for Minnesota. As Table 1 shows, all of our state's revisions were down and we had the third biggest average reduction among the 50 states.
Table 1: Revisions to real GDP
The population numbers have not changed, however. The result is that, in recent years, our performance on the key metric of per capita GDP is even worse than I wrote in April.
As Figure 1 shows, it is now the case that as recently as 2014, GDP per capita in Minnesota was $4,658 above that of the United States generally, or $18,632 for a family of four. In every year but one since 2014, that permium has fallen until, in 2023, it vanished completely and Minnesota became, for the first time on record, a state with below average per capita GDP. In 2025, Minnesota's per capita GDP was $2,767 below that of the United States generally, or $11,068 for a family of four.
Figure 1: GDP per capita in Minnesota minus GDP per capita for the United States, 2017$
Minnesota's below average economic performance, which is worse than previously thought, is a long standing problem which must have deep rooted causes. In an upcoming report I will dig into the data to see what these are.
* * *
John Phelan is an Economist at the Center of the American Experiment.
john.phelan@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/revised-data-show-that-minnesotas-economy-is-performing-even-worse-than-previously-thought/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: Here's the Lesson for Hannah-Jones - School Reform Outweighs School Narratives
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Oct. 9 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary:
* * *
Here's the lesson for Hannah-Jones: School reform outweighs school narratives
Written by Josiah Padley, Catrin Wigfall | October 7, 2026
New York Times reporter and 1619 Project writer Nikole Hannah-Jones recently published an essay titled, "In Fighting for Every Black Child, Did I Betray My Own?" It's an update to her 2016 piece titled, "Choosing a School for My Daughter in a Segregated City," in which ... Show Full Article MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Oct. 9 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary: * * * Here's the lesson for Hannah-Jones: School reform outweighs school narratives Written by Josiah Padley, Catrin Wigfall | October 7, 2026 New York Times reporter and 1619 Project writer Nikole Hannah-Jones recently published an essay titled, "In Fighting for Every Black Child, Did I Betray My Own?" It's an update to her 2016 piece titled, "Choosing a School for My Daughter in a Segregated City," in whichshe announced shed be sending her daughter to a high-poverty, majority-black school in New York City.
Her new essay is almost a mea culpa, but it concludes with her doubling down. She admits that her daughter Najya got a dramatically substandard education in elementary and middle school. Najya herself insisted on switching to a high-achieving school for high school. But even with this admission, Hannah-Jones says she still felt it was her responsibility to fight systemic racism by putting Najya in a struggling school.
The piece has drawn plenty of coverage, which we encourage you to read. Our point is narrower: good school reform comes from well-informed classroom decisions, not theory-driven narratives.
Hannah-Jones argues that segregated schools stay bad partly because families with options leave them, and that she owed something to the people who fought to integrate American schools. She and her husband could have written checks larger than the PTA's entire yearly budget, but she says that money alone wasn't the point. To Hannah-Jones, race and segregation are the defining narrative of school deficiencies.
Hannah-Jones builds on this premise on the This American Life podcast, where she repeats that she felt responsible to those who fought for desegregation. But Najya, who also appeared on the episode, says the experience did little for her beyond giving her a chaotic childhood.
Najya is deeply critical of the entire school experiment. Her frustrations in elementary and middle school culminated in a horrifying high school experience, when she realized she didn't understand basic fractions in a classroom full of students who did. Through hard work and many tutoring hours, she has now reached grade level. She's jaded, though, telling her mother that she "wanted better. All the kids in my school that wanted better wanted better. There's no benefit that came out of you putting me in those schools. There's no benefit at all. Could you tell me a benefit?"
Hannah-Jones named large PTA donations and a new breakfast for honor roll students. She also confronted principals about the deficiencies of their schools. But all fell short of changing the schools themselves.
Narratives don't change classrooms
Teaching is a profession, and how well a teacher does depends on them being adequately trained (or not) and supported by their administration (or not). It's what happens inside the classroom that really counts. As Robert Pondiscio writes, when reform-minded folks are focused on large narratives (such as increasing school choice or decreasing systemic racism as a panacea), they're often ignoring the universal, more significant need for basic classroom competency.
During Najya's fourth grade year, Hannah-Jones requested copies of Najya's graded classroom work. After a long struggle with administration, Hannah-Jones learned that Najya's work was rarely graded and that she had inaccurately (and consistently) been given high grades.
While Hannah-Jones was eventually able to involve the district superintendent, it appears that she was never given a coherent reason as to why such gross misconduct had been permitted by the teacher or the principal. In most professions, that would have cost someone their job. But in a landscape built on tenure and union protections, accountability can fall through the cracks, right along with students.
Hannah-Jones could have discovered on her own that her child was not on grade level. Najya failed the state algebra exam, but Hannah-Jones dismissed the results, writing that "like many children, she has trouble sometimes on standardized tests."
There were more policy choices that led to poor education outcomes. No homework was ever assigned at Najya's elementary school or middle school. "Grading for equity" and "no-zeroes" policies have spread in recent years, driven by the misplaced fear that struggling students can't meet traditional academic standards.
This perception, along with other flat narratives such as report cards always portraying the better picture on learning and the assumption that a school just needs "more funding," risk obscuring policy choices that could result in real change.
As Najya discovered, such policy choices lower the bar for students like herself, who then fall further behind. She and her classmates wanted homework, she says, and knew that something was missing when she didn't receive any. Her middle school teacher later admitted to Hannah-Jones that the no-homework policy was, in hindsight, "racism under the guise of antiracism."
Hannah-Jones complains that the teachers at her daughter's school watched fights break out and stood aside, doing nothing. She's right to complain. They had the manpower to intervene, given that the student to staff ratio at the school is fewer than 10 to one. What the teachers didn't have was backup from school administrators and parents. When a school's policies and culture don't support discipline, it's hard to blame the teachers alone.
A New York City educator teaching under the same umbrella organization as Najya's school had this to say:
"People outside of the school system, even parents, can underestimate how intense student behavior can alter a teachers ability to teach...Colleges attempt to prepare students for the rigors of planning, assessing, and running a classroom. There is scant little mention of how to deal with abject disrespect and violence...Part of the reason Najya received a lackluster education was likely because her teachers didn't know how to survive the job in the first place."
Policy can't fix a disruptive classroom by itself, but it helps. If teachers aren't trained to manage their classrooms, train them. If students are fighting, there should be consequences. There are real, significant social issues in many schools, but there are also real tools available to keep learning going.
That lack of discipline was by design at one of Najya's schools. Hannah-Jones criticizes zero-tolerance schools, and the school she chose went the other way. She writes:
"Schools like hers tend to rely on a zero-tolerance disciplinary playbook and often simply remove misbehaving students from classrooms, depriving them of precious educational time they cannot afford to miss. But at Unison, teachers constantly worked to refocus students and mitigate conflict. This is good educational practice, but kids like Najya, who were just trying to do their work, saw this treatment as deeply unfair."
It's hard not to side with Najya. And the school's discipline narrative introduces a tradeoff that Hannah-Jones apparently didn't fully weigh. According to Hannah-Jones, neither Najya nor any of her friends tested into New York's specialized high schools. Would a calmer building environment have changed that? Perhaps. It certainly would have given Najya a more peaceful experience, which some parents would consider an essential part of personal development.
Nayja's school didn't fail her because it was segregated, but because it was unprepared to control the classroom.
Najya's failing school spends an eye-popping $52,000 per year per student. Any check Hannah-Jones could write and any complaint she could raise wouldn't change the dynamic of poorly prepared school leaders and bad policy.
What reformers can get right
Now a high school junior, time will tell how this experiment on Najya's schooling impacts her long-term. But her story is bigger than one family's choice. Hannah-Jones had options, including strong (majority-black) New York schools that put results first.
As Chad Aldeman writes, parents shouldn't feel guilty for choosing them. There are real, systemic issues in many schools. Parents are right to take their duty to their children seriously and ensure that their child has a strong educational experience.
At the same time, many school issues can be mitigated with a clear-eyed understanding of the problem, thoughtful professional development, and appropriate incentives such as accountability, competition, and consequences. Are administrators promoting or allowing grade inflation? Are students expected to adhere to a consistent code of conduct? Do teachers know their material well and are adequately prepared to lead a classroom?
Najya may be able to fully cast aside this flat narrative. But school reformers shouldn't count on every student doing so. Good policy must focus on getting the fundamentals described above right, preventing a flat narrative from becoming a child's destiny and resulting in fewer families feeling like they must gamble on their child's education.
* * *
Josiah Padley is a Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment. josiah.padley@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Catrin Wigfall is a Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment. catrin.wigfall@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/heres-the-lesson-for-hannah-jones-school-reform-outweighs-school-narratives/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Here's the lesson for Hannah-Jones: School reform outweighs school narratives
Written by Josiah Padley, Catrin Wigfall | October 7, 2026
New York Times reporter and 1619 Project writer Nikole Hannah-Jones recently published an essay titled, "In Fighting for Every Black Child, Did I Betray My Own?" It's an update to her 2016 piece titled, "Choosing a School for My Daughter in a Segregated City," in which ... Show Full Article MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Oct. 9 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary: * * * Here's the lesson for Hannah-Jones: School reform outweighs school narratives Written by Josiah Padley, Catrin Wigfall | October 7, 2026 New York Times reporter and 1619 Project writer Nikole Hannah-Jones recently published an essay titled, "In Fighting for Every Black Child, Did I Betray My Own?" It's an update to her 2016 piece titled, "Choosing a School for My Daughter in a Segregated City," in whichshe announced shed be sending her daughter to a high-poverty, majority-black school in New York City.
Her new essay is almost a mea culpa, but it concludes with her doubling down. She admits that her daughter Najya got a dramatically substandard education in elementary and middle school. Najya herself insisted on switching to a high-achieving school for high school. But even with this admission, Hannah-Jones says she still felt it was her responsibility to fight systemic racism by putting Najya in a struggling school.
The piece has drawn plenty of coverage, which we encourage you to read. Our point is narrower: good school reform comes from well-informed classroom decisions, not theory-driven narratives.
Hannah-Jones argues that segregated schools stay bad partly because families with options leave them, and that she owed something to the people who fought to integrate American schools. She and her husband could have written checks larger than the PTA's entire yearly budget, but she says that money alone wasn't the point. To Hannah-Jones, race and segregation are the defining narrative of school deficiencies.
Hannah-Jones builds on this premise on the This American Life podcast, where she repeats that she felt responsible to those who fought for desegregation. But Najya, who also appeared on the episode, says the experience did little for her beyond giving her a chaotic childhood.
Najya is deeply critical of the entire school experiment. Her frustrations in elementary and middle school culminated in a horrifying high school experience, when she realized she didn't understand basic fractions in a classroom full of students who did. Through hard work and many tutoring hours, she has now reached grade level. She's jaded, though, telling her mother that she "wanted better. All the kids in my school that wanted better wanted better. There's no benefit that came out of you putting me in those schools. There's no benefit at all. Could you tell me a benefit?"
Hannah-Jones named large PTA donations and a new breakfast for honor roll students. She also confronted principals about the deficiencies of their schools. But all fell short of changing the schools themselves.
Narratives don't change classrooms
Teaching is a profession, and how well a teacher does depends on them being adequately trained (or not) and supported by their administration (or not). It's what happens inside the classroom that really counts. As Robert Pondiscio writes, when reform-minded folks are focused on large narratives (such as increasing school choice or decreasing systemic racism as a panacea), they're often ignoring the universal, more significant need for basic classroom competency.
During Najya's fourth grade year, Hannah-Jones requested copies of Najya's graded classroom work. After a long struggle with administration, Hannah-Jones learned that Najya's work was rarely graded and that she had inaccurately (and consistently) been given high grades.
While Hannah-Jones was eventually able to involve the district superintendent, it appears that she was never given a coherent reason as to why such gross misconduct had been permitted by the teacher or the principal. In most professions, that would have cost someone their job. But in a landscape built on tenure and union protections, accountability can fall through the cracks, right along with students.
Hannah-Jones could have discovered on her own that her child was not on grade level. Najya failed the state algebra exam, but Hannah-Jones dismissed the results, writing that "like many children, she has trouble sometimes on standardized tests."
There were more policy choices that led to poor education outcomes. No homework was ever assigned at Najya's elementary school or middle school. "Grading for equity" and "no-zeroes" policies have spread in recent years, driven by the misplaced fear that struggling students can't meet traditional academic standards.
This perception, along with other flat narratives such as report cards always portraying the better picture on learning and the assumption that a school just needs "more funding," risk obscuring policy choices that could result in real change.
As Najya discovered, such policy choices lower the bar for students like herself, who then fall further behind. She and her classmates wanted homework, she says, and knew that something was missing when she didn't receive any. Her middle school teacher later admitted to Hannah-Jones that the no-homework policy was, in hindsight, "racism under the guise of antiracism."
Hannah-Jones complains that the teachers at her daughter's school watched fights break out and stood aside, doing nothing. She's right to complain. They had the manpower to intervene, given that the student to staff ratio at the school is fewer than 10 to one. What the teachers didn't have was backup from school administrators and parents. When a school's policies and culture don't support discipline, it's hard to blame the teachers alone.
A New York City educator teaching under the same umbrella organization as Najya's school had this to say:
"People outside of the school system, even parents, can underestimate how intense student behavior can alter a teachers ability to teach...Colleges attempt to prepare students for the rigors of planning, assessing, and running a classroom. There is scant little mention of how to deal with abject disrespect and violence...Part of the reason Najya received a lackluster education was likely because her teachers didn't know how to survive the job in the first place."
Policy can't fix a disruptive classroom by itself, but it helps. If teachers aren't trained to manage their classrooms, train them. If students are fighting, there should be consequences. There are real, significant social issues in many schools, but there are also real tools available to keep learning going.
That lack of discipline was by design at one of Najya's schools. Hannah-Jones criticizes zero-tolerance schools, and the school she chose went the other way. She writes:
"Schools like hers tend to rely on a zero-tolerance disciplinary playbook and often simply remove misbehaving students from classrooms, depriving them of precious educational time they cannot afford to miss. But at Unison, teachers constantly worked to refocus students and mitigate conflict. This is good educational practice, but kids like Najya, who were just trying to do their work, saw this treatment as deeply unfair."
It's hard not to side with Najya. And the school's discipline narrative introduces a tradeoff that Hannah-Jones apparently didn't fully weigh. According to Hannah-Jones, neither Najya nor any of her friends tested into New York's specialized high schools. Would a calmer building environment have changed that? Perhaps. It certainly would have given Najya a more peaceful experience, which some parents would consider an essential part of personal development.
Nayja's school didn't fail her because it was segregated, but because it was unprepared to control the classroom.
Najya's failing school spends an eye-popping $52,000 per year per student. Any check Hannah-Jones could write and any complaint she could raise wouldn't change the dynamic of poorly prepared school leaders and bad policy.
What reformers can get right
Now a high school junior, time will tell how this experiment on Najya's schooling impacts her long-term. But her story is bigger than one family's choice. Hannah-Jones had options, including strong (majority-black) New York schools that put results first.
As Chad Aldeman writes, parents shouldn't feel guilty for choosing them. There are real, systemic issues in many schools. Parents are right to take their duty to their children seriously and ensure that their child has a strong educational experience.
At the same time, many school issues can be mitigated with a clear-eyed understanding of the problem, thoughtful professional development, and appropriate incentives such as accountability, competition, and consequences. Are administrators promoting or allowing grade inflation? Are students expected to adhere to a consistent code of conduct? Do teachers know their material well and are adequately prepared to lead a classroom?
Najya may be able to fully cast aside this flat narrative. But school reformers shouldn't count on every student doing so. Good policy must focus on getting the fundamentals described above right, preventing a flat narrative from becoming a child's destiny and resulting in fewer families feeling like they must gamble on their child's education.
* * *
Josiah Padley is a Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment. josiah.padley@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Catrin Wigfall is a Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment. catrin.wigfall@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/heres-the-lesson-for-hannah-jones-school-reform-outweighs-school-narratives/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: Energy Affordability - Minnesota Loses, Iowa Wins
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Oct. 9 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary:
* * *
Energy affordability: Minnesota loses, Iowa wins; iron and steel edition
Written by Darren Nelson | October 7, 2026
President Donald J. Trump announced on September 30, 2026 that the "Largest-Ever Steel Plant [is] Coming to Iowa." This is Iowa. Not Minnesota, where the iron ore is mined by the same company of Mesabi Metallics. Although not asserted, MN energy affordability was key.
"Mesabi announced ... Show Full Article MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Oct. 9 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary: * * * Energy affordability: Minnesota loses, Iowa wins; iron and steel edition Written by Darren Nelson | October 7, 2026 President Donald J. Trump announced on September 30, 2026 that the "Largest-Ever Steel Plant [is] Coming to Iowa." This is Iowa. Not Minnesota, where the iron ore is mined by the same company of Mesabi Metallics. Although not asserted, MN energy affordability was key. "Mesabi announcedtoday at the White House an $18 billion investment to build a fully integrated steel company, uniting its iron ore mine on Minnesota's Mesabi Iron Range with a new steel complex in Iowa. Mesabi will invest $15 billion to build the Iowa facility, in addition to the $3 billion being spent to complete the iron ore mine in Minnesota. Creating the largest single investment in a steel complex in American history[.]"
Mesabi's news release appears to suggest that energy affordability was a major consideration in choosing IA over MN:
* "...technology that will significantly lower energy usage and reduce emissions.
* "...reduces the energy required..., improving the efficiency and productivity of the steelmaking process."
* "...reducing energy use and emissions compared to traditional blast furnaces."
What did not get mentioned by Mesabi, or the White House, was IA vs MN on business climate, loans, regulations, subsidies or taxes, although these might have also been factors. According to the World Steel Association electricity input costs can be as high as 40%.
Ranks
Chart 1 below shows state rankings out of 50 for MN vs IA, not including Washington DC nor the US as a whole, for average electricity rates in cents per kilowatt-hour (cents/kWh) for total customers combined (i.e. residential, commercial and industrial). Rank 1 is best and rank 50 worst. Chart 2 further below shows industrial only, over the same time period of 1970 to 2026. Highlights include:
* Chart 1: MN total ranking improves from 36 in 1970 to the state's best of 9 in 1988-1990, then goes backwards to 13 by 2003, and deteriorates to the state's worst of 37 in 2021, with some improvement to 30 so far in 2026. IA passes by MN, going from 20 in 2006 to 11 in 2007, and eventually to 7 in 2026 year to date.
* Chart 2: From 1988 onwards, IA industrial ranks better than MN, going from 13 that year to 9 in 2026, whilst MN went from 15 to 33, noting that MN's worst was 39 in 2021-2022.
[View charts 1 and 2 in the link at bottom.]
Rates
Once again the take-off year for electricity rates in MN, and to a lesser extent IA, is 2002. This can be seen below for total customers in Chart 3, and for industrial in Chart 4 further below. Highlights include:
* Chart 3: MN total electricity rates inflate 125%, between 2002 and 2026, from 5.80 to 13.03 (cents/kWh), whilst IA increase 67% from 6.01 to 10.03 (cents/kWh).
* Chart 4: MN industrial electricity rates swell 140%, between 2002 and 2026, from 4.07 to 9.75 (cents/kWh), whilst IA rise 82% from 4.06 to 7.38 (cents/kWh).
* Rates volatility between 2002 to 2026, as measured by Relative Standard Deviation, for MN total and industrial were 23.1% and 23.3%, compared to IA's 14.9% and 17.4%.
[View charts 3 and 4 in the link at bottom.]
Reliability
The three traditional measures of reliability for electricity distribution are SAIFI, SAIDI and CAIDI, which can be proxies for overall reliability for franchise monopolies, like in MN and IA. Highlights for SAIFI in Chart 5 below include:
* Between 2014 and 2024, MN SAIFI increased 24.9%, was 10.3% volatile and 1.06 on average. IA SAIFI decreased -2.6%, was 15.8% volatile and 1.08 on average.
* If one removes the "2020 Midwest derecho" storm event, then MN SAIFI volatility increases slightly from 10.3% to 10.8%, whilst IA's dramatically falls from 15.8% to 10.6%.
[View chart 5 in the link at bottom.]
Conclusion
One mainstream media report said: "Power can be a major cost for steel producers, and commercial electricity prices in Iowa are marginally lower than in Minnesota." However:
* "Power" is, and not just "can be a major cost."
* "Electricity prices" are not "commercial" but actually "industrial."
* "Electricity prices" in Iowa are not "marginally lower" than Minnesota, but are whoppingly lower by 32%!
Not only should the MN PUC "look in the mirror" on energy affordability, so to should the MN Uniparty, which has encouraged (since 2001) and mandated (since 2007) electricity unaffordability, and state-wide de-industrialization, under the guise of saving the planet.
* * *
Darren Nelson is a Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment.
darren.nelson@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/energy-affordability-minnesota-loses-iowa-wins-iron-and-steel-edition/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Energy affordability: Minnesota loses, Iowa wins; iron and steel edition
Written by Darren Nelson | October 7, 2026
President Donald J. Trump announced on September 30, 2026 that the "Largest-Ever Steel Plant [is] Coming to Iowa." This is Iowa. Not Minnesota, where the iron ore is mined by the same company of Mesabi Metallics. Although not asserted, MN energy affordability was key.
"Mesabi announced ... Show Full Article MINNETONKA, Minnesota, Oct. 9 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary: * * * Energy affordability: Minnesota loses, Iowa wins; iron and steel edition Written by Darren Nelson | October 7, 2026 President Donald J. Trump announced on September 30, 2026 that the "Largest-Ever Steel Plant [is] Coming to Iowa." This is Iowa. Not Minnesota, where the iron ore is mined by the same company of Mesabi Metallics. Although not asserted, MN energy affordability was key. "Mesabi announcedtoday at the White House an $18 billion investment to build a fully integrated steel company, uniting its iron ore mine on Minnesota's Mesabi Iron Range with a new steel complex in Iowa. Mesabi will invest $15 billion to build the Iowa facility, in addition to the $3 billion being spent to complete the iron ore mine in Minnesota. Creating the largest single investment in a steel complex in American history[.]"
Mesabi's news release appears to suggest that energy affordability was a major consideration in choosing IA over MN:
* "...technology that will significantly lower energy usage and reduce emissions.
* "...reduces the energy required..., improving the efficiency and productivity of the steelmaking process."
* "...reducing energy use and emissions compared to traditional blast furnaces."
What did not get mentioned by Mesabi, or the White House, was IA vs MN on business climate, loans, regulations, subsidies or taxes, although these might have also been factors. According to the World Steel Association electricity input costs can be as high as 40%.
Ranks
Chart 1 below shows state rankings out of 50 for MN vs IA, not including Washington DC nor the US as a whole, for average electricity rates in cents per kilowatt-hour (cents/kWh) for total customers combined (i.e. residential, commercial and industrial). Rank 1 is best and rank 50 worst. Chart 2 further below shows industrial only, over the same time period of 1970 to 2026. Highlights include:
* Chart 1: MN total ranking improves from 36 in 1970 to the state's best of 9 in 1988-1990, then goes backwards to 13 by 2003, and deteriorates to the state's worst of 37 in 2021, with some improvement to 30 so far in 2026. IA passes by MN, going from 20 in 2006 to 11 in 2007, and eventually to 7 in 2026 year to date.
* Chart 2: From 1988 onwards, IA industrial ranks better than MN, going from 13 that year to 9 in 2026, whilst MN went from 15 to 33, noting that MN's worst was 39 in 2021-2022.
[View charts 1 and 2 in the link at bottom.]
Rates
Once again the take-off year for electricity rates in MN, and to a lesser extent IA, is 2002. This can be seen below for total customers in Chart 3, and for industrial in Chart 4 further below. Highlights include:
* Chart 3: MN total electricity rates inflate 125%, between 2002 and 2026, from 5.80 to 13.03 (cents/kWh), whilst IA increase 67% from 6.01 to 10.03 (cents/kWh).
* Chart 4: MN industrial electricity rates swell 140%, between 2002 and 2026, from 4.07 to 9.75 (cents/kWh), whilst IA rise 82% from 4.06 to 7.38 (cents/kWh).
* Rates volatility between 2002 to 2026, as measured by Relative Standard Deviation, for MN total and industrial were 23.1% and 23.3%, compared to IA's 14.9% and 17.4%.
[View charts 3 and 4 in the link at bottom.]
Reliability
The three traditional measures of reliability for electricity distribution are SAIFI, SAIDI and CAIDI, which can be proxies for overall reliability for franchise monopolies, like in MN and IA. Highlights for SAIFI in Chart 5 below include:
* Between 2014 and 2024, MN SAIFI increased 24.9%, was 10.3% volatile and 1.06 on average. IA SAIFI decreased -2.6%, was 15.8% volatile and 1.08 on average.
* If one removes the "2020 Midwest derecho" storm event, then MN SAIFI volatility increases slightly from 10.3% to 10.8%, whilst IA's dramatically falls from 15.8% to 10.6%.
[View chart 5 in the link at bottom.]
Conclusion
One mainstream media report said: "Power can be a major cost for steel producers, and commercial electricity prices in Iowa are marginally lower than in Minnesota." However:
* "Power" is, and not just "can be a major cost."
* "Electricity prices" are not "commercial" but actually "industrial."
* "Electricity prices" in Iowa are not "marginally lower" than Minnesota, but are whoppingly lower by 32%!
Not only should the MN PUC "look in the mirror" on energy affordability, so to should the MN Uniparty, which has encouraged (since 2001) and mandated (since 2007) electricity unaffordability, and state-wide de-industrialization, under the guise of saving the planet.
* * *
Darren Nelson is a Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment.
darren.nelson@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/energy-affordability-minnesota-loses-iowa-wins-iron-and-steel-edition/
[Category: ThinkTank]
American Action Forum Issues Insight: CBO - FY 2026 Budget Deficit Totaled $2 Trillion
WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 -- The American Action Forum issued the following insight:
* * *
October 8, 2026
CBO: FY 2026 Budget Deficit Totaled $2 Trillion
Jordan Haring
Executive Summary
* The Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) September 2026 Monthly Budget Review shows the federal budget deficit totaled $2.0 trillion during fiscal year (FY) 2026 - $218 billion higher than the $1.8 trillion deficit recorded in FY 2025 and $140 billion above the $1.9 trillion deficit CBO projected in its latest baseline.
* The FY 2026 deficit was the net effect of $7.4 trillion of spending and $5.4 trillion of ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 -- The American Action Forum issued the following insight: * * * October 8, 2026 CBO: FY 2026 Budget Deficit Totaled $2 Trillion Jordan Haring Executive Summary * The Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) September 2026 Monthly Budget Review shows the federal budget deficit totaled $2.0 trillion during fiscal year (FY) 2026 - $218 billion higher than the $1.8 trillion deficit recorded in FY 2025 and $140 billion above the $1.9 trillion deficit CBO projected in its latest baseline. * The FY 2026 deficit was the net effect of $7.4 trillion of spending and $5.4 trillion ofrevenue collections
* The $218 billion increase in the deficit can be explained by a $386 billion increase in spending that more than offset the $169 billion of higher revenue collections.
-
Introduction
The Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) September 2026 Monthly Budget Review shows the federal budget deficit totaled $2.0 trillion during fiscal year (FY) 2026. The $2.0 trillion deficit was the net effect of $7.4 trillion of spending and $5.4 trillion of revenue collections. The FY 2026 deficit was $218 billion higher than the $1.8 trillion deficit recorded in FY 2025 and $140 above the $1.9 trillion deficit CBO projected in its latest baseline. The difference between the FY 2025 and FY 2026 deficit was the net effect of a $386 billion increase in spending that more than offset the $169 billion of higher revenue collections.
As a share of the economy, the FY 2026 deficit was an estimated 6.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), 0.3 percentage points of GDP higher than the 5.8 percent of GDP FY 2025 deficit.
* * *
Chart: Annual Budget Deficit, FY 2006-2026 (Billions of Dollars and Percent of GDP)
* * *
The $218 billion increase in the deficit between FY 2025 and FY 2026 can be explained by$271 billion of greater mandatory and discretionary spending, $115 billion of higher interest payments on the national debt, and $169 billion of higher revenue collections.
In nominal dollars, the FY 2026 deficit was the third largest in history, behind the COVID-19 pandemic-driven deficits of $3.1 trillion in FY 2020 and $2.8 trillion in FY 2021.
Revenue Was Up in FY 2026
According to CBO, federal revenue collections rose by $169 billion (3 percent) between FY 2025 and FY 2026, from $5.2 trillion to $5.4 trillion. Individual income tax receipts increased by $188 billion (7 percent) and payroll tax collections rose by $67 billion (4 percent) due to higher wages and salaries. Corporate income tax receipts declined by $70 billion (16 percent) due to the One Big Beautiful Bill's business tax changes, including larger tax deductions for certain business investments. Customs duties fell by $22 billion (11 percent). Customs duties were larger early in FY 2026 (October-April) but drastically declined between May and September as the federal government issued about $130 billion of the $166 billion of total eligible tariff refunds to businesses that paid tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Powers Act, which the Supreme Court ruled illegal.
Other sources of revenue, including estate and gift taxes and excise taxes, rose by $6 billion (3 percent), due to larger estate and gift tax collections and Federal Reserve remittances.
* * *
Chart: Federal Revenue Collections During FY 2026 and FY 2025 (Billions of Dollars)
* * *
Spending Was Up in FY 2026
According to CBO, federal spending rose by $386 billion (6 percent) between FY 2025 and FY 2026, from $7.0 trillion to $7.4 trillion. Social Security spending increased by $86 billion (5 percent) due to increases in average monthly benefits and the number of beneficiaries enrolled in the program. Medicare spending rose by $77 billion (8 percent) due to higher enrollment and payment rates for services, and Medicaid spending increased by $55 billion (8 percent) because of higher per-enrollee costs.
Department of Defense spending on military activities increased by $48 billion (5 percent) due to higher spending on military personnel and research and development. Spending on veterans' benefits and services rose by $39 billion (10 percent) because more people received benefits and per-beneficiary spending rose. Other programmatic spending fell by $33 billion (2 percent).
* * *
Chart: Federal Spending During FY 2026 and FY 2025 (Billions of Dollars)
* * *
Interest payments on the national debt increased by $115 billion (11 percent) because the debt was larger and long-term interest rates were higher. A decline in short-term interest rates partially offset the increase in interest payments. Net interest was the second-largest government expenditure behind Social Security.
The National Debt Is Unsustainable
At the end of FY 2026, federal debt held by the public totaled $32.4 trillion. This was $2.3 trillion higher than the $30.2 trillion debt at the end of FY 2025.
As a share of GDP, the debt was an estimated 100 percent - 0.5 percentage points higher than the 99 percent debt-to-GDP at the end of FY 2025. The debt is projected to continue to rise over both the short- and long-term, in both nominal dollars and as a share of GDP.
* * *
Chart: Federal Debt Held by the Public, FY 2019-2026 (Trillions of Dollars)
* * *
Jordan Haring is the Director of Fiscal Policy at the American Action Forum
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/cbo-fy-2026-budget-deficit-totaled-2-trillion/
[Category: Think Tank]
* * *
October 8, 2026
CBO: FY 2026 Budget Deficit Totaled $2 Trillion
Jordan Haring
Executive Summary
* The Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) September 2026 Monthly Budget Review shows the federal budget deficit totaled $2.0 trillion during fiscal year (FY) 2026 - $218 billion higher than the $1.8 trillion deficit recorded in FY 2025 and $140 billion above the $1.9 trillion deficit CBO projected in its latest baseline.
* The FY 2026 deficit was the net effect of $7.4 trillion of spending and $5.4 trillion of ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 -- The American Action Forum issued the following insight: * * * October 8, 2026 CBO: FY 2026 Budget Deficit Totaled $2 Trillion Jordan Haring Executive Summary * The Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) September 2026 Monthly Budget Review shows the federal budget deficit totaled $2.0 trillion during fiscal year (FY) 2026 - $218 billion higher than the $1.8 trillion deficit recorded in FY 2025 and $140 billion above the $1.9 trillion deficit CBO projected in its latest baseline. * The FY 2026 deficit was the net effect of $7.4 trillion of spending and $5.4 trillion ofrevenue collections
* The $218 billion increase in the deficit can be explained by a $386 billion increase in spending that more than offset the $169 billion of higher revenue collections.
-
Introduction
The Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) September 2026 Monthly Budget Review shows the federal budget deficit totaled $2.0 trillion during fiscal year (FY) 2026. The $2.0 trillion deficit was the net effect of $7.4 trillion of spending and $5.4 trillion of revenue collections. The FY 2026 deficit was $218 billion higher than the $1.8 trillion deficit recorded in FY 2025 and $140 above the $1.9 trillion deficit CBO projected in its latest baseline. The difference between the FY 2025 and FY 2026 deficit was the net effect of a $386 billion increase in spending that more than offset the $169 billion of higher revenue collections.
As a share of the economy, the FY 2026 deficit was an estimated 6.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), 0.3 percentage points of GDP higher than the 5.8 percent of GDP FY 2025 deficit.
* * *
Chart: Annual Budget Deficit, FY 2006-2026 (Billions of Dollars and Percent of GDP)
* * *
The $218 billion increase in the deficit between FY 2025 and FY 2026 can be explained by$271 billion of greater mandatory and discretionary spending, $115 billion of higher interest payments on the national debt, and $169 billion of higher revenue collections.
In nominal dollars, the FY 2026 deficit was the third largest in history, behind the COVID-19 pandemic-driven deficits of $3.1 trillion in FY 2020 and $2.8 trillion in FY 2021.
Revenue Was Up in FY 2026
According to CBO, federal revenue collections rose by $169 billion (3 percent) between FY 2025 and FY 2026, from $5.2 trillion to $5.4 trillion. Individual income tax receipts increased by $188 billion (7 percent) and payroll tax collections rose by $67 billion (4 percent) due to higher wages and salaries. Corporate income tax receipts declined by $70 billion (16 percent) due to the One Big Beautiful Bill's business tax changes, including larger tax deductions for certain business investments. Customs duties fell by $22 billion (11 percent). Customs duties were larger early in FY 2026 (October-April) but drastically declined between May and September as the federal government issued about $130 billion of the $166 billion of total eligible tariff refunds to businesses that paid tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Powers Act, which the Supreme Court ruled illegal.
Other sources of revenue, including estate and gift taxes and excise taxes, rose by $6 billion (3 percent), due to larger estate and gift tax collections and Federal Reserve remittances.
* * *
Chart: Federal Revenue Collections During FY 2026 and FY 2025 (Billions of Dollars)
* * *
Spending Was Up in FY 2026
According to CBO, federal spending rose by $386 billion (6 percent) between FY 2025 and FY 2026, from $7.0 trillion to $7.4 trillion. Social Security spending increased by $86 billion (5 percent) due to increases in average monthly benefits and the number of beneficiaries enrolled in the program. Medicare spending rose by $77 billion (8 percent) due to higher enrollment and payment rates for services, and Medicaid spending increased by $55 billion (8 percent) because of higher per-enrollee costs.
Department of Defense spending on military activities increased by $48 billion (5 percent) due to higher spending on military personnel and research and development. Spending on veterans' benefits and services rose by $39 billion (10 percent) because more people received benefits and per-beneficiary spending rose. Other programmatic spending fell by $33 billion (2 percent).
* * *
Chart: Federal Spending During FY 2026 and FY 2025 (Billions of Dollars)
* * *
Interest payments on the national debt increased by $115 billion (11 percent) because the debt was larger and long-term interest rates were higher. A decline in short-term interest rates partially offset the increase in interest payments. Net interest was the second-largest government expenditure behind Social Security.
The National Debt Is Unsustainable
At the end of FY 2026, federal debt held by the public totaled $32.4 trillion. This was $2.3 trillion higher than the $30.2 trillion debt at the end of FY 2025.
As a share of GDP, the debt was an estimated 100 percent - 0.5 percentage points higher than the 99 percent debt-to-GDP at the end of FY 2025. The debt is projected to continue to rise over both the short- and long-term, in both nominal dollars and as a share of GDP.
* * *
Chart: Federal Debt Held by the Public, FY 2019-2026 (Trillions of Dollars)
* * *
Jordan Haring is the Director of Fiscal Policy at the American Action Forum
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/cbo-fy-2026-budget-deficit-totaled-2-trillion/
[Category: Think Tank]
AFPI Launches New Weekly Spanish Political Commentary, 'Perspectiva Aguilar'
WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release:
* * *
AFPI Launches New Weekly Spanish Political Commentary, "Perspectiva Aguilar"
October 8, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Today, America First Studios, a multimedia initiative of the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), launched a new weekly Spanish-language digital news series called Perspectiva Aguilar.
Hosted by Alfonso Aguilar--AFPI Director of Hispanic Engagement and former Chief of the U.S. Office of Citizenship--Perspectiva Aguilar will provide Hispanic Americans with clear, concise analysis ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release: * * * AFPI Launches New Weekly Spanish Political Commentary, "Perspectiva Aguilar" October 8, 2026 WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Today, America First Studios, a multimedia initiative of the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), launched a new weekly Spanish-language digital news series called Perspectiva Aguilar. Hosted by Alfonso Aguilar--AFPI Director of Hispanic Engagement and former Chief of the U.S. Office of Citizenship--Perspectiva Aguilar will provide Hispanic Americans with clear, concise analysisof the most important public policy and cultural debates shaping the country, all from an America First perspective.
"Hispanic Americans should not have to rely on the mainstream media to understand the America First agenda," said Aguilar. "Every week, Perspectiva Aguilar will provide a clear, unapologetic America First perspective on the biggest policy and cultural debates facing our country.
We will break down what is happening, why it matters, and what it means for their families and communities."
Through Perspectiva Aguilar, AFPI is continuing to lead the way in bringing the America First movement directly to Hispanic American communities. Aguilar will react to major headlines, societal developments, viral moments, and policy debates, pairing timely commentary with AFPI's policy expertise.
Each episode will be posted on AFPI's Hispanic Leadership Coalition social channels--YouTube, X, WhatsApp, and Facebook--posted on the AFPI website, and distributed via email and text.
* * *
Original text here: https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-launches-new-weekly-spanish-political-commentary-perspectiva-aguilar/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
AFPI Launches New Weekly Spanish Political Commentary, "Perspectiva Aguilar"
October 8, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Today, America First Studios, a multimedia initiative of the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), launched a new weekly Spanish-language digital news series called Perspectiva Aguilar.
Hosted by Alfonso Aguilar--AFPI Director of Hispanic Engagement and former Chief of the U.S. Office of Citizenship--Perspectiva Aguilar will provide Hispanic Americans with clear, concise analysis ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release: * * * AFPI Launches New Weekly Spanish Political Commentary, "Perspectiva Aguilar" October 8, 2026 WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Today, America First Studios, a multimedia initiative of the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), launched a new weekly Spanish-language digital news series called Perspectiva Aguilar. Hosted by Alfonso Aguilar--AFPI Director of Hispanic Engagement and former Chief of the U.S. Office of Citizenship--Perspectiva Aguilar will provide Hispanic Americans with clear, concise analysisof the most important public policy and cultural debates shaping the country, all from an America First perspective.
"Hispanic Americans should not have to rely on the mainstream media to understand the America First agenda," said Aguilar. "Every week, Perspectiva Aguilar will provide a clear, unapologetic America First perspective on the biggest policy and cultural debates facing our country.
We will break down what is happening, why it matters, and what it means for their families and communities."
Through Perspectiva Aguilar, AFPI is continuing to lead the way in bringing the America First movement directly to Hispanic American communities. Aguilar will react to major headlines, societal developments, viral moments, and policy debates, pairing timely commentary with AFPI's policy expertise.
Each episode will be posted on AFPI's Hispanic Leadership Coalition social channels--YouTube, X, WhatsApp, and Facebook--posted on the AFPI website, and distributed via email and text.
* * *
Original text here: https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-launches-new-weekly-spanish-political-commentary-perspectiva-aguilar/
[Category: ThinkTank]