Think Tanks
Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Manhattan Institute Issues Commentary to Daily Wire: Marriage Crisis Is Worse Than You Think
NEW YORK, May 15 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on May 13, 2026, by fellow Daniel Di Martino to the Daily Wire:* * *
The Marriage Crisis Is Worse Than You Think
Without the steady arrival of immigrants, America's marriage rate would be even lower.
*
In 1960, nearly 85% of prime-age adults (those between 25 and 54) were married. Today, that figure has collapsed to roughly 54%.
However, the topline marriage data conceals that America's marriage rate is propped up by immigrants. While 64% of foreign-born adults in America are married, fewer than 52% ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, May 15 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on May 13, 2026, by fellow Daniel Di Martino to the Daily Wire: * * * The Marriage Crisis Is Worse Than You Think Without the steady arrival of immigrants, America's marriage rate would be even lower. * In 1960, nearly 85% of prime-age adults (those between 25 and 54) were married. Today, that figure has collapsed to roughly 54%. However, the topline marriage data conceals that America's marriage rate is propped up by immigrants. While 64% of foreign-born adults in America are married, fewer than 52%of native-born American adults are married. That's a 12-point gap. Without the steady arrival of immigrants who still prioritize marriage, America's marriage rate would be even lower and, consequently, so would the birth rate.
At first, one may think that immigrants are more likely to be married because many of them arrive through marriage. But two facts disprove this argument. First, there was no gap in the marriage rate between immigrants and natives as early as 1970.
And second, when we divide immigrants by how old they were when they first came to the United States, it becomes clear that the younger immigrants are when they arrive in the United States, the more they look like the average American when it comes to marriage. Culture is driving the decline in marriage, and immigrants and their children are unfortunately assimilating into America's low-marriage culture.
Continue reading the entire piece here at the Daily Wire (https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-marriage-crisis-is-worth-than-you-think?row=0&elementPosition=0&rowType=Web+Search+Overlay). Based off a recent report (https://manhattan.institute/article/the-vanishing-immigrant-marriage-advantage-how-assimilation-leads-to-fewer-marriages).
* * *
Daniel Di Martino is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the founder of the Dissident Project, a speakers' bureau for young immigrants from socialist countries. He earned his Ph.D. in economics at Columbia University.
* * *
Original text here: https://manhattan.institute/article/the-marriage-crisis-is-worse-than-you-think
[Category: ThinkTank]
Liberty In Action: $750,000 for American Airlines. Courtesy of Taxpayers
PHOENIX, Arizona, May 15 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Goldwater Institute posted the following news wrap up:* * *
Liberty In Action: $750,000 for American Airlines. Courtesy of Taxpayers
*
The public purse is not a private piggy bank for government leaders to dip into to reward their favorite businesses. That's why the Goldwater Institute is now warning city officials in Columbia, Mo., that their promise to fork over taxpayer money to shore up American Airlines' bottom line violates the state's constitution.
To entice American to introduce daily, round-trip flights to Charlotte, N.C., Columbia ... Show Full Article PHOENIX, Arizona, May 15 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Goldwater Institute posted the following news wrap up: * * * Liberty In Action: $750,000 for American Airlines. Courtesy of Taxpayers * The public purse is not a private piggy bank for government leaders to dip into to reward their favorite businesses. That's why the Goldwater Institute is now warning city officials in Columbia, Mo., that their promise to fork over taxpayer money to shore up American Airlines' bottom line violates the state's constitution. To entice American to introduce daily, round-trip flights to Charlotte, N.C., Columbialeaders recently offered to provide the airline with up to $750,000 in taxpayer money if the new route isn't profitable every month. The problem: that arrangement violates the Missouri Constitution's Gift Clause, which prohibits cities from lending their credit or providing public money "to or in aid of any corporation." In a letter this week, Goldwater urged Columbia's leaders to take steps to ensure that only private money is used to pay any of the airline's invoices under the agreement.
Taxpayers should never shoulder the risk for a multi-billion-dollar company's for-profit business pursuits. The Goldwater Institute will continue to demand transparency to ensure that officials in Columbia and elsewhere abide by their state constitution.
Read more here (https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/taxpayers-shouldnt-be-responsible-for-airlines-losses/).
* * *
Oklahoma Stands Up for Right to Try, Homelessness Accountability
Supporters of patients' rights and government accountability in Oklahoma have new reasons to celebrate after Gov. Kevin Stitt signed two Goldwater Institute reforms into law.
In a win for rare-disease patients, Oklahoma is now the 18 th state to approve Goldwater's Right to Try for Individualized Treatments Act, a cutting-edge law that empowers patients to seek personalized treatments based on their own genetics. These treatments by definition cannot go through the Food and Drug Administration's outdated regulatory process in a timely manner. States like Oklahoma are ensuring that patients aren't denied access to potentially life-saving treatments due to bureaucratic red tape.
Oklahoma has also joined the growing list of states that have signed legislation modeled after the Goldwater Institute's Safe Neighborhoods Act. The law allows property owners to seek compensation when local governments allow homelessness to grow unchecked and harm neighborhoods. The premise is simple: when government fails to perform its most basic duties, law-abiding citizens shouldn't be left holding the bag.
The Goldwater Institute will continue fighting to pass Right to Try for Individualized Treatments and the Safe Neighborhoods Act across the nation.
Read more about Right to Try here (https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/oklahoma-signs-right-to-try-2-0-into-law/).
Read more about the Safe Neighborhoods Act here (https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/georgia-gov-kemp-signs-goldwaters-model-safe-neighborhoods-act/).
* * *
The Founders' Angst: Liberty and Slavery in a New Nation
How did America's slaveholding Founders really feel about slavery? While some contend they were hypocrites, those Founders expressed more angst, guilt, and self-awareness about their position than most might expect. That's the lesson from the Goldwater Institute's Timothy Sandefur in a new article in Reason.
In the article, adapted from his new book, "Proclaiming Liberty: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and the Declaration of Independence," Sandefur explains that America's Founders didn't deny that it was self-contradictory for them to hold slaves while also proclaiming liberty to be every person's birthright. Thomas Jefferson, for example, publicly opposed slavery throughout his life, pursued "freedom cases" in court, and unsuccessfully fought to embed a denunciation of slavery into the Declaration of Independence.
"What is actually remarkable about the patriots is the degree of candor with which they confessed that slavery clashed with their principles," Sandefur writes. "No patriot of stature ever defended the practice. And no considerable political movement in the English-speaking world had ever before condemned slavery as candidly and as often as the patriots did."
As we approach the nation's 250th birthday this July, it's important to remember that the patriots were not caricatures-they were living, breathing individuals with a great devotion to the new nation, despite their sometimes inconsistent positions on a great evil of their age.
Read more here (https://reason.com/2026/05/05/how-the-slaveholding-founders-really-felt-about-slavery/).
***
Original text here: https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/liberty-in-action-750000-for-american-airlines-courtesy-of-taxpayers/
Jamestown Foundation Posts Commentary: Central Asia Diversifies and Indigenizes Defense Procurement to Limit Reliance on Moscow
WASHINGTON, May 15 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on May 14, 2026, by Edward Lemon, Kennan Institute fellow at the Daniel Morgan Graduate School, and Bradley Jardin:* * *
Central Asia Diversifies and Indigenizes Defense Procurement to Limit Reliance on Moscow
Executive Summary:
* On January 13, Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoyev announced plans to revise Uzbekistan's 2018 Defense Doctrine, signaling a major modernization shift centered on artificial intelligence (AI), drones, and cyberwarfare, alongside efforts to expand domestic defense industrial capacity.
* ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 15 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on May 14, 2026, by Edward Lemon, Kennan Institute fellow at the Daniel Morgan Graduate School, and Bradley Jardin: * * * Central Asia Diversifies and Indigenizes Defense Procurement to Limit Reliance on Moscow Executive Summary: * On January 13, Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoyev announced plans to revise Uzbekistan's 2018 Defense Doctrine, signaling a major modernization shift centered on artificial intelligence (AI), drones, and cyberwarfare, alongside efforts to expand domestic defense industrial capacity. *The reform reflects a broader Central Asian trend of reducing reliance on Russia's legacy security architecture, as states reassess dependence on Moscow amid its constrained defense industry, sanctions pressure, and reputational concerns following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
* Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are investing heavily in indigenous defense industries, particularly drone production, armored vehicles, and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)-standard ammunition, reflecting a broader regional strategy to strengthen military autonomy while avoiding excessive dependence on any single foreign supplier.
On January 13, Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoyev announced a plan to revise the country's Defense Doctrine (President of Uzbekistan, January 13). Uzbekistan last updated its defense policy in 2018. The revisions will focus on the use of artificial intelligence (AI), drones, and cyberwarfare. Mirziyoyev vowed to further develop the country's defense industry and "strengthen the military-scientific base of engineering and technology and to organize local military technology parks" (President of Uzbekistan, January 13).
Central Asia continues to lean on Moscow for its security more than three decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Russia has supplied roughly two-thirds of the region's arms imports and has been involved in over a third of all joint military exercises involving Central Asian militaries since 1991 (Kennan Institute, June 4, 2021). This enduring influence reflects structural legacies: the inheritance of Soviet-era hardware, continued institutional linkages through frameworks such as the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), and the ongoing presence of Russian military facilities in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan.
Central Asian governments increasingly view their defense dependence on Russia as a liability. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine has exposed the risks of overreliance on a supplier now constrained by sanctions, battlefield losses, and competing demands on its defense industry (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, September 15, 2022). To some in Central Asia, Russia itself is also a security risk, considering its revanchist rhetoric. Central Asian governments are not abandoning Russia outright, but they are increasingly seeking allies and building domestic defense capacity to gradually dilute their reliance on it.
Russian officials and state media channels have frequently described Kazakhstan's territory as a gift from Moscow and say that its northern regions are historically Russian. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's Vkontakte (VK) account called Kazakhstan an "artificial state" in August 2022, though his office claimed that a hacker was responsible for the post (The Moscow Times, August 22, 2022).
Central Asia was long embedded in the Soviet military-industrial complex, designed to support central planners rather than operate with any strategic autonomy. Following their independence, the new republics were left with equipment tailored to Soviet standards, leaving Moscow with a captive market.
According to Oxus Society data, Russia sold $3.8 billion worth of arms to Central Asia in the first three decades of its independence. The lion's share, $2.3 billion, went to Kazakhstan (The Oxus Society, accessed May 14). Russia also continues to dominate maintenance lifecycles for regional equipment, with many locked into multi-decade reliance on Russian support networks.
Central Asian militaries have turned to alternative suppliers as they modernize outdated hardware to adapt to modern warfare (The Oxus Society, accessed May 14). Attempts to diversify defense partners in recent years have resulted in growing unease about overcorrecting toward reliance on the People's Republic of China (PRC), which is now the region's second-largest supplier. Beijing increased its share of the Central Asian arms market from 1.5 percent to 13 percent between 2012 and 2022 (Pakistan Today, January 15, 2022). The PRC's growing defense sales have left some Central Asian officials and analysts wary about substituting one form of dependence for another.
Central Asia has been reorienting toward North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) partners to escape defense dependence on the PRC and Russia. Turkiye's contribution has been the most transformative, centered on affordable drone platforms like the Bayraktar TB2, which have been bought by Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan (TsAMTO, September 28, 2021; Radio Azattyq, October 22, 2021; Kommersant, December 26, 2024; Radio Azattyq, January 16). The impact of Bayraktar TB2 drones was evident in the 2022 Kyrgyz-Tajik border conflict, where Kyrgyz forces used them to conduct laser-guided attacks on Tajik positions (Anna News, September 18, 2022). Italy has sold helicopters, drones, and aircraft to Central Asian countries. Italy has accounted for some 30 percent of Turkmenistan's arms purchases since it gained independence from the Soviet Union, making it Ashgabat's largest defense partner (Oxus Society, September 28, 2020). These sales have included Leonardo M-346FA light attack aircraft, AW139/AW101 helicopters, Falco XN unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and Beretta ARX-160 assault rifles, a staple of Turkmenistan's military parades (Bellingcat, January 25, 2019).
Central Asian states are investing in domestic defense production alongside diversification of arms purchases. These manufacturing efforts are not designed to replace foreign suppliers entirely, but to mitigate supply disruptions, build limited industrial capacity, and strengthen bargaining power in procurement relationships.
Kazakhstan, the region's wealthiest state, has taken the lead in weapons manufacturing. In April 2025, Kazakhstan's Ministry of Defense launched a $1 billion Defense Industry Development Fund. This fund aims to acquire the licenses and manufacture domestically critical military hardware, such as artillery ammunition, weapons systems, and armored vehicles (Kazinform, April 16, 2025). A key driver in this effort is Kazakhstan's defense company, Paramount Engineering, which produces next-generation armored vehicles, including the Alan-2, tailored for special forces and emergency units, as well as the Barys 6x6 and Barys 8x8 infantry fighting vehicles (Paramount Engineering, accessed May 14). Kazakhstan has also moved to address one of the most acute vulnerabilities exposed by Russia's war against Ukraine: ammunition supply. In 2023, Kazakhstan launched the ASPAN project to build four factories to produce NATO-standard ammunition, artillery shells, and mines, valued at $1 billion (Bugin, December 10, 2025). The goal is to achieve military autonomy and potential export opportunities, while reducing reliance on Russia.
The region's most populous country, Uzbekistan, is also developing its domestic capacity, albeit at a less advanced stage than Kazakhstan. Mirziyoyev's 2026 plan for comprehensive military reform prioritizes increasing domestic production of military equipment to reduce reliance on foreign suppliers (President of Uzbekistan, January 13). Even before this announcement, a defense industry was already emerging in Uzbekistan. AKSUM Group, founded in 2019, manufactures ten-seat Aksum Max-V armored vehicles at its manufacturing facility in Chirchik, as well as the Chaser 980 and the Chaser 1200 armored patrol boats (Deloviye Emirati, January 24, 2024; Army Recognition Group, March 11, 2025).
Unmanned systems have become a focal point in Uzbekistan. In 2022, Uzbekistan's State Defense Industry Committee announced plans to develop indigenous drone capabilities, marking a shift toward technologies that are both strategically relevant and comparatively accessible (Uza.uz January 19, 2022). This would mark a regional first. Uzbekistan's Lochin HA-341(M2) drone has a 50-kilometer range and is designed for surveillance (Daryo, February 24). Another model, the Lochin HA-251 hexacopter, is designed for tactical strike operations and can carry a 10-kilo payload.
Kazakhstan has followed suit, with its Airborne Assault Forces (AAF) establishing a domestic drone production facility that produced 100 units within its first three months of operation in early 2026 (Times of Central Asia, January 23). These initiatives underscore a broader regional lesson drawn from recent conflicts: that drones offer a relatively low-cost, high-impact capability that can be developed domestically with fewer barriers than traditional artillery and aerial systems.
Central Asia is no longer content to unconditionally rely on Russia for defense. Diversification and limited indigenization are reshaping the region's defense landscape, even as legacy systems and structural constraints preserve Moscow's central role in the short- to medium-term.
* * *
Edward Lemon, the Kennan Institute Fellow at the Daniel Morgan Graduate School.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/central-asia-diversifies-and-indigenizes-defense-procurement-to-limit-reliance-on-moscow/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Hudson Institute Issues Commentary: Japan's Bond Market and the Perils of Incomplete Analysis
WASHINGTON, May 15 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on May 14, 2026, by adjunct fellow Mark Siegel:* * *
Japan's Bond Market and the Perils of Incomplete Analysis
The recurring panic over Japanese government bonds tells us more about the limits of conventional financial modeling than it does about Japan's fiscal trajectory.
*
For more than three decades, a cottage industry of financial analysts has warned that Japan's government bond market is heading for collapse. The arithmetic, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 15 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on May 14, 2026, by adjunct fellow Mark Siegel: * * * Japan's Bond Market and the Perils of Incomplete Analysis The recurring panic over Japanese government bonds tells us more about the limits of conventional financial modeling than it does about Japan's fiscal trajectory. * For more than three decades, a cottage industry of financial analysts has warned that Japan's government bond market is heading for collapse. The arithmetic,they insist, is unforgiving: debt exceeding 200 percent of gross domestic product, persistent deficits, an aging population that draws down savings, and a financial system saturated with sovereign paper. The conclusion, repeated with solemnity at each successive inflection point in global markets, is that the Japanese government bond (JGB) market is on the verge of a crisis.
Analysts have been expecting collapse for a very long time. And they have been wrong--consistently, expensively wrong--in ways that deserve more serious examination than the financial press typically offers.
The Widow-Maker Trade and Its Lessons
Commentators call the market bet against JGBs the "widow-maker trade" for good reason. Investors, armed with compelling quantitative models, have repeatedly bet against Japanese government bonds and have suffered the consequences. Yet the trade never loses its appeal because the models that generate it are seductive in their simplicity: High debt loads are dangerous, and persistent deficits are unsustainable.
The problem is that these metrics, applied to sovereign debt markets, are not comprehensive. The relationship between a country's fiscal ratios and its bond market behavior is not mechanical--it is mediated by institutions, history, and culture. Debt sustainability analyses (DSAs) are useful tools, but they have limitations. They capture quantities and flows with precision, but they can't measure the social and institutional conditions that determine whether those indicators will trigger a crisis or persist in productive tension.
Japan is perhaps the most dramatic illustration of this limitation in the developed world.
Understanding the Equilibrium
To understand why the JGB market has remained stable at interest rates that confound outsiders, one should reckon with the aftermath of Japan's asset bubble collapse in the early 1990s.
Japanese households, businesses, and financial institutions emerged from the bubble's implosion deeply scarred. The result was what economist Richard Koo called a "balance sheet recession," a prolonged period in which private sector actors, rather than seeking to maximize profit, focused almost entirely on eliminating debt.[1]
This over-saving led to a shortfall in private demand. The Japanese government, confronted with an anemic economy, stepped into the breach. It spent, invested, and ran deficits as a structural response to an unusual social and economic condition in which households, through a combination of trauma and cultural inclination, delegated economic agency to the state.
This arrangement reflected an implicit social compact. Japanese households and institutional investors directed their excess savings into JGBs. In most economies, the government extracts resources from the private sector through taxation. In Japan, the private sector lent to the government at low rates because deploying capital in a deflationary domestic economy with uncertain returns was less attractive. The government's fiscal position was not a pathology. It was, in a meaningful sense, the mirror image of private sector behavior that the government itself had not created and could not easily reverse.
Critics who reduce this to "unsustainable fiscal imbalance" are not wrong. But they are missing the architecture of the system they are criticizing. The deficit and the debt were the product of a social equilibrium, not a failure of political will.
What the Models Miss
Debt sustainability analyses are good at projecting how debt will change over time based on assumptions about growth, interest rates, and government finances. But they cannot account for the political and institutional factors that can contribute to or mitigate market stress or instability.
The standard DSA framework does not recognize that the overwhelming majority of JGBs are held domestically, by institutions whose behavior is not driven by return-maximizing logic. It fails to see the psychology that suppressed interest rates for a generation and ignores the Bank of Japan's demonstrated willingness to intervene in bond markets at scale. Japan still has the capacity to adjust--through taxation, structural reform, or changes in spending--when circumstances change. The DSA framework should inform, but not replace, judgment. When a trade has been consensus-wrong for 30 years, the appropriate response is not to run the model again with slightly different parameters. It is to ask what the model is missing.
New Challenges, Genuine but Manageable
None of this is to say that Japan does not face fiscal challenges. It does. The end of deflation--a development that many economists and policymakers spent years trying to engineer--distorts the mathematics of debt financing. When rates were near zero and inflation was negative, the carrying cost of a large debt stock was manageable. As the Bank of Japan cautiously normalizes policy, the refinancing calculus becomes more demanding.
At the same time, Japan's demographic trajectory is troublesome. A shrinking workforce and a ballooning retired population will shift aggregate savings behavior in ways that erode one of the structural pillars of JGB stability. Retirees tend to dwindle their savings. They do not buy government bonds, and the domestic pool of capital available to buy new debt will not grow indefinitely; it may shrink.
Defense spending commitments add further pressure. Japan's pledge to expand defense outlays represents an increase in expenditure that does not come with an immediate revenue source.
The Political Opportunity
Tokyo's political landscape makes the current moment more promising than the bears admit. Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has taken office with approval ratings that give her unusual latitude, backed by a supermajority in the Diet that could support significant structural reform.
Japan's untapped fiscal capacity comes from well-known sources. It's no secret that agricultural policy has coddled inefficient small-scale farming at enormous cost, and patient bank lending continues to sustain zombie companies. At the same time, businesses operate in the shadows of the tax system, and large corporations hoard retained earnings. These elements have resisted reform for decades because altering them would mean imposing concentrated costs on organized constituencies while delivering diffuse benefits.
A prime minister with high popularity and a legislative supermajority is well-positioned to confront this problem. The time to think carefully about reform is now, not after a market disruption has forced the issue.
Conclusion
The recurring alarm over the JGB market is not without a factual basis. Japan's fiscal ratios are extraordinary by historical standards, and the transition from a deflationary to a mildly inflationary regime does alter the relevant arithmetic. But alarm that ignores three decades of contrary evidence, treats DSA outputs as verdicts, and fails to engage seriously with the institutional and social dynamics that have sustained JGB stability is not rigorous analysis. It is the same trade, dressed in new clothes, that has been wrong before and will likely be wrong again.
Japan's fiscal situation calls for reform and political courage--not panic. Analysts who keep predicting a crisis would serve their clients and the broader public better by asking, with intellectual humility, why they have been wrong for so long. The answer to that question is more illuminating than any debt sustainability model they are likely to run.
* * *
Endnote
Richard Koo, Balance Sheet Recession: Japan's Struggle with Uncharted Economics and its Global Implications (Wiley, 2003).
* * *
Mark Siegel is an adjunct fellow at Hudson Institute.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/economics/japans-bond-market-perils-incomplete-analysis-mark-siegel
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center for American Progress: Voters Demand Balanced 'Both/And' Immigration Approach, Rejecting Enforcement-Only Extremes, New Poll Reveals
WASHINGTON, May 15 -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release on May 14, 2026:* * *
Voters Demand Balanced 'Both/And' Immigration Approach, Rejecting Enforcement-Only Extremes, New Poll Reveals
The Center for American Progress and Blue Rose Research released new polling data today that reveal a massive disconnect between the Trump administration's maximalist enforcement tactics and voter appetite: American voters want a balanced "both/and" immigration strategy that pairs increased border security with expanded legal immigration and earned pathways to citizenship.
The ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 15 -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release on May 14, 2026: * * * Voters Demand Balanced 'Both/And' Immigration Approach, Rejecting Enforcement-Only Extremes, New Poll Reveals The Center for American Progress and Blue Rose Research released new polling data today that reveal a massive disconnect between the Trump administration's maximalist enforcement tactics and voter appetite: American voters want a balanced "both/and" immigration strategy that pairs increased border security with expanded legal immigration and earned pathways to citizenship. Thepoll of 12,100 voters, fielded in April 2026, found that Trump's signature policies are highly unpopular with voters, including a majority of swing voters. Yet congressional Republicans are doubling down on Trump's reckless agenda and plan to force through tens of billions of dollars more to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Patrol to ramp up indiscriminate mass deportations. Meanwhile, the most popular policies tested are practical measures that enhance border security and increase legal immigration--including those laid out in CAP's immigration plan, which are significantly more popular than enforcement alone. A pathway to citizenship remains one of the most popular policies even as Trump has doubled down on mass deportation efforts.
Key data points:
* Trump's signature policies are unpopular: Mass deportation, ending birthright citizenship, and massive ICE funding are all underwater and are among the worst-performing policies tested by Blue Rose across all issue areas.
* Voters (68 percent) support an earned pathway to citizenship for long-term residents (10+ years), including a majority of Trump voters (57 percent) and swing voters (64 percent)--and support grows as the length of residency increases.
* Leading with border security strengthens support for legal immigration: While 64 percent of voters are concerned about border security, a pro-immigration plan paired with enforcement outperforms the maximum enforcement alternative by 12 points.
* Voters want real fixes to asylum policy: Voters are wary of "catch-and-release," but back CAP's framework of 30-day adjudications at the border (58 percent support)--suggesting a path for humane reform that still satisfies the demand for order.
"Voters are sending a consistent, coherent signal: They do not view enforcement and legal immigration as a zero-sum game," said Becca Siegel, chief insights officer at CAP. "Instead, voters see them as two sides of the same coin: They want illegal immigration brought under control, but they also want expanded pathways for workers and families and an earned path to citizenship for those who have lived here a long time."
"The CAP plan aligns with where most of the country thinks we should be," said , senior director of Immigration Policy at CAP. "Voters reject Trump's terror tactics and seek a balanced approach like CAP's plan that both safeguards our borders and modernizes our immigration policies. When attempting to chart a path forward on immigration, policymakers should look to CAP's plan."
Read: "Voters Want Both Border Security and Expanded Legal Immigration" (https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/05/Immigration-Polling-Memo_-Voters-Want-Both-Border-Security-and-Expanded-Legal-Immigration.pdf)by Neera Tanden, Becca Siegel, and Debu Gandhi.
For more information or to speak with an expert, please contact Rafael Medina at rmedina@americanprogress.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release-voters-demand-balanced-both-and-immigration-approach-rejecting-enforcement-only-extremes-new-poll-reveals/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: Lebanon and Israel Talks - Empowering Diplomacy Over Open-Ended Conflict
WASHINGTON, May 15 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on May 14, 2026, by non-resident senior associate Paul Salem:* * *
Lebanon and Israel Talks: Empowering Diplomacy Over Open-Ended Conflict
Israel and Lebanon hold their third round of talks today under U.S. auspices in Washington, D.C. The first two rounds were preparatory rounds to agree on the parameters for starting full-scale talks; this third round will be transitioning to the substantive portions of the agreement.
The direct diplomatic track between Lebanon and Israel is the first ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 15 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on May 14, 2026, by non-resident senior associate Paul Salem: * * * Lebanon and Israel Talks: Empowering Diplomacy Over Open-Ended Conflict Israel and Lebanon hold their third round of talks today under U.S. auspices in Washington, D.C. The first two rounds were preparatory rounds to agree on the parameters for starting full-scale talks; this third round will be transitioning to the substantive portions of the agreement. The direct diplomatic track between Lebanon and Israel is the firstin many decades and represents a genuine opportunity to build lasting security across the Lebanon-Israel border and lead toward a permanent cessation of hostilities and the potential for peace between the two countries. The United States is playing an important role in mediating and pushing the process forward. The parties are approaching the talks with positive intent, but also with slightly different agendas.
Lebanon's Objectives: Ceasefire, Sovereignty, and Secure Borders
For Lebanon, the goal is to secure an urgently needed full ceasefire, stop the demolition of homes and villages under Israeli occupation, and strengthen the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) to enable it to resume its duties in Southern Lebanon and coordinate toward a full Israeli withdrawal. Lebanon also seeks to extend its authority throughout the rest of the country, reclaim the state's monopoly on the use of force, and disarm Hezbollah. Beirut also wants the final demarcation of the land border between the two countries, a reaffirmation of the maritime border agreement, and an exchange of prisoners.
Lebanon's president, prime minister, and government are eager to make rapid progress along this path, but they face a number of constraints. After 25 years of the Assad regime and Iranian dominance, and 7 years into a deep economic and financial crisis, the state is in a dilapidated condition and requires large-scale external support as well as more reform to increase its capacities.
Politically, Beirut's leaders need buy-in from the speaker of the Parliament of Lebanon, Amal leader Nabih Berri, and are moving along the tracks of disarming Hezbollah and negotiating with Israel, both of which are opposed by Hezbollah, and which are still facing strong opposition within the Shiite community.
In addition, Beirut has to take into account the Arab position, represented by Saudi Arabia, which favors the talks but is also concerned about what it perceives as Israeli ambitions to become the new hegemon in the region.
The Lebanese position is to aim for all the steps that need to be taken to enable a fully secure border for both sides, and a permanent cessation of hostilities, as well as the full restoration of Lebanese state sovereignty, including the disarmament of Hezbollah; after that, Lebanon would move on to the next step of exploring peace with Israel.
Israel's Objectives: Security, Permanent Peace, and Political Considerations
From the Israeli side, one can detect a fair amount of reluctance. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not initially respond to Lebanese calls for direct talks and a ceasefire. It took direct pressure from President Donald Trump to bring about Israeli acceptance, as well as two ceasefires, which have been honored much more in the breach than in compliance. But Israel has taken up the diplomatic channel and has sent empowered negotiators to the table.
Israeli demands are simple and clear: the full disarmament of Hezbollah and a fully secure border. The challenge is that the Lebanese state is not yet in a position to achieve that goal in the near term and requires substantial support and time to get there. But Netanyahu's timetable is more urgent and short-term. He needs to show results in the here and now as he is facing a tight reelection campaign that will determine his political future in the next few months.
The war against Hezbollah enjoys majority support in Israel, along with a similar opposition to accepting a ceasefire. So Netanyahu wants to go into the elections showing that he is taking decisive action against Hezbollah; at the same time, he can make political capital out of also claiming that he is working toward peace with another Arab country.
Hence, Israel is entering the talks with mixed interests. It is likely to resist a full ceasefire and insist on going ahead with the talks while its military operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon continue. That will be difficult for the Lebanese side to agree to.
The United States: Essential Mediator, Strategic Sponsor, and Calculated Actor
For the United States, one of the key dynamics is that President Trump is very interested in the end state of being able to declare another peace treaty under his auspices in the Middle East. While the road to getting there might be challenging and long, both sides need to be aware that, for President Trump, that is his main motivating factor for staying involved.
On a short-term horizon, it is no secret that Trump is focused on the more urgent and important goal of trying to conclude a deal with Iran that would enable him to declare some form of victory and move on. If he reaches an end of hostilities there, he might want to pivot to an end-of-war and peace narrative and may lean on Israel to agree to a full ceasefire in Lebanon as well.
The United States has a pivotal role to play in these talks because it is the lead supporter of Lebanon and the LAF, and the only one with leverage over Israel. The process of bringing security to the Lebanon-Israel border and making steady progress in disarming Hezbollah relies on upscaling support to Lebanon and the LAF--including security sector reform.
The United States is faced with managing the different timetables in this process. Stopping the current hostilities, which are affecting communities on both sides of the border, is an urgent priority measured in weeks and months. Building up the Lebanese state and army, after many years of the Assad regime and Iranian influence, and fully disarming Hezbollah, are also urgent goals, but will require many months or a few years to fully accomplish.
The Missing Parties: Hezbollah and Iran
The other players in these talks, of course, are the absent players--Hezbollah and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The IRGC intentionally brought about this war by pressing Hezbollah to launch rockets at Israel on March 2. Its goal was to reopen the Lebanese front and pin down at least some of Israel's military and political energies in a proxy war in Lebanon, as part of its effort to ease the pressure on Iran itself and inflict costs on its enemies. From its perspective, Israel has obliged.
For the IRGC, the current situation is its preferred sweet spot: an open front between Lebanon and Israel, with an extended Israeli occupation that drains Israeli resources and attention and gives Hezbollah a new lease on life as the resistance to Israeli occupation. While Iran might welcome a ceasefire in Lebanon, if it secures one in the Gulf--and uses that time to try to rebuild Hezbollah--it would draw comparable benefit from open-ended war in Lebanon, keeping Israel busy and pinned down, no matter the cost to Lebanon or to the Shiite community.
It is not clear if the Lebanese leadership of Hezbollah has much agency in current decisionmaking relating to their own party, as their actions have certainly helped Iran, but have only brought ruin and devastation on their own community.
The IRGC and Hezbollah do not want the Lebanese-Israeli talks to make any real progress, neither toward empowering the LAF, extending state authority to the south and other parts of the country, nor reaching a secure border agreement and permanent cessation of hostilities. Of course, they oppose the disarmament of Hezbollah, and they would also obviously oppose any peace treaty between the two countries. But since early 2025, while they are still able to determine dynamics on the battlefield, they have lost their ability to determine Lebanese state policy.
The Lessons of the November 2024 Cessation of Hostilities Agreement
It would behoove those assembled in Washington to assess the previous experience of the cessation of hostilities agreement that was arrived at by both sides, with U.S. mediation, back in November 2024. While not perfectly or fully implemented, that agreement enabled a historic and major LAF deployment to the entire area south of the Litani River. The agreement was the first in many decades, began a significant reduction of Hezbollah weaponry and capacities in the surrounding area, and signaled the ending of Hezbollah attacks on Israel--at least until the launching of the U.S.-Israel war on Iran in late February.
Of course, that was just the first phase of implementation, and required more steps, support, and time to reach its full potential. But the November 2024 agreement demonstrated that diplomacy could credibly and sustainably alter realities on the ground.
Unfortunately, Israel pocketed the steps that the Lebanese state undertook without complying with its side of the agreement. Israel pledged to withdraw from the five positions it occupied in Southern Lebanon and to reduce the pace of attacks on targets in Lebanon, without following through.
For Israel, its lack of compliance was dictated by what it considered its security priorities. But the effect in Lebanon undermined not only the credibility of diplomacy but also the Lebanese state and army.
Through the 2024 Israel-Lebanon ceasefire agreement, the Lebanese state asked citizens--especially those near the southern border of Lebanon--to trust state institutions and the national army rather than Hezbollah, and to trust that the state's actions and international diplomacy would return security and prosperity to the region. Israel's actions telegraphed to the same community that the Lebanese state's actions would not bring about security nor prosperity, and that Lebanon's international diplomacy would have no leverage or impact on their lives or on Israeli actions. Hezbollah welcomed the counter-message, which reinforced its narrative that only armed resistance backed by Iran--not the state--could improve conditions at the southern border.
The Strategic Principle: A Strong Lebanese State Is the Only Durable Solution
Lebanon has suffered from a collapse of sovereignty and unstable borders since at least the late 1960s, when Arab pressure forced Lebanon to cede control of part of the south to the Palestine Liberation Organization. Later, the Assad regime and Iranian pressure facilitated Hezbollah's grip on the country. The Lebanese people, represented by their state, are urgently focused on trying to reclaim their country's sovereignty, establish safe and secure borders, and disarm all nonstate actors.
Israel has been trying to secure its northern border through unilateral military action for more than half a century, as well, and still has no lasting result to show for it.
The short version is that bringing security to Lebanon--and Israel--requires the re-emergence of a strong state in Lebanon. It is unclear that Israel recognizes this strategic reality. Much of Israeli policy reflexively resists the emergence of a strong state along its border. But a strong state is the only guarantor of the elimination and permanent absence of armed nonstate actors. A weak state enables armed nonstate actors and perpetuates the decades-old security chaos along the border.
While Israel's actions against Hezbollah have certainly weakened the group and enabled a historic turnaround in Lebanon and Syria, the manner in which many of these actions are carried out--and Israel's disregard for agreements reached with the Lebanese state--also serves to undermine that same state. In other words, Israel's actions are generally weakening Hezbollah and the Lebanese state at the same time. This creates a recipe for long-term state failure and chaos, in which nonstate actors like Hezbollah thrive, and not a recipe for long-term security or stability.
For the United States, and for countries in the region and internationally, the simple reality that a strong Lebanese state is the long-term answer to this decades-long security problem should also be front and center. Over the past year and a half, the United States and other allies of Lebanon have welcomed the rise of a new president, prime minister, and government in Lebanon that rejects IRGC and Hezbollah power and is intent on building a strong and stable Lebanon and having stable and secure relations with its neighbors.
And while the United States and others have provided significant support to the state and the LAF over the past months, the overall level of support and engagement should be ramped up to a higher level. The Lebanese state needs to arrive at a level of state and domestic military capacity comparable to, say, that of Jordan. Of course, many reforms should be implemented on the Lebanese side, both in the military as well as in the public administration and economic/banking sector, but these actions rely on a higher level of engagement from the United States and the regional and international community to seize this historic opportunity.
The Days Ahead
It is hard to say exactly how the two days of talks in Washington will fare. Certainly, there are differing agendas and timetables as we have outlined above. And certainly, there will be repercussions from other arenas of discussion, whether along the U.S.-Iran track in Islamabad, or in the U.S.-China talks in Beijing that might affect Islamabad, and in turn, the United States.
A positive outcome from the talks would include the following:
* Implementation of a genuine ceasefire and an end to the destruction of homes and villages.
Concrete commitments by the LAF to expand deployment and strengthen control in Southern Lebanon and throughout the country.
* Substantial new U.S. and international assistance to Lebanon and the LAF.
* A sequenced roadmap covering Israeli withdrawal, border demarcation, detainees, sovereign state expansion, Hezbollah disarmament, and a permanent cessation of hostilities.
* A shared declaration of principles outlining the desired end state.
Lebanon would affirm that the Lebanese state alone should exercise authority over decisions of war and peace; that all weapons will come under exclusive state control; and that Lebanon seeks secure and stable relations with all neighboring states, including Israel.
Israel would affirm that it has no territorial ambitions in Lebanon; that it supports the emergence of a strong and sovereign Lebanese state; and that it will withdraw fully from Lebanese territory as security arrangements and Hezbollah disarmament are implemented.
The United States would commit to guaranteeing and monitoring the diplomatic process; mobilizing military and economic assistance for both parties; coordinating international support; and exercising its influence to ensure reciprocal implementation by all sides.
A Historic Opportunity
The current talks may falter or fail; the gaps between the parties remain substantial, and regional developments--particularly U.S.-Iran diplomacy--will influence the prospect of peace. Yet the strategic logic is compelling. Lebanon urgently needs sovereignty and stability. Israel urgently needs a secure northern border. The United States seeks a diplomatic achievement and a more stable regional order. These interests converge around a single objective: the reconstruction of a strong Lebanese state. If the parties recognize this reality and align their policies accordingly, the current negotiations could set the stage for a historic transformation.
* * *
Paul Salem is a senior associate (non-resident) at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/lebanon-and-israel-talks-empowering-diplomacy-over-open-ended-conflict
[Category: ThinkTank]
America First Policy Institute Issues Commentary: When the Thin Blue Line Breaks - America's Police Staffing Crisis
WASHINGTON, May 15 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following commentary on May 14, 2026, by American Justice Chair Brett Tolman and Frank D.Murphy, director of Community Impact and chair of the Athletes for America Coalition:* * *
When the Thin Blue Line Breaks: America's Police Staffing Crisis
Successful teams hinge on a strong, full roster of players. When a player is injured, or quits, the overall performance of that team--and those who depend on that team are affected. We are seeing this happen across the nation as law enforcement vacancies rise, and retention rates drop. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 15 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following commentary on May 14, 2026, by American Justice Chair Brett Tolman and Frank D.Murphy, director of Community Impact and chair of the Athletes for America Coalition: * * * When the Thin Blue Line Breaks: America's Police Staffing Crisis Successful teams hinge on a strong, full roster of players. When a player is injured, or quits, the overall performance of that team--and those who depend on that team are affected. We are seeing this happen across the nation as law enforcement vacancies rise, and retention rates drop.As men who have been on both sides of the law--Brett as a federal prosecutor, and Frank as a juvenile offender--we can both attest to the importance of a well-staffed police force, and community support for these heroes who risk their lives for strangers on a daily basis. As we honor these brave men and women during National Police Week, we must pause to consider if we are doing enough to support those who protect and serve our communities.
The numbers would say no: from 2020 to 2025, the number of police officers across the nation dropped by 5.2 percent. Major cities like Chicago and Philadelphia have more than 1,000 vacancies each, and this problem extends beyond local law enforcement; seventy percent of all law enforcement agencies report that recruitment is more difficult than it was five years ago. Agencies with fewer than 50 officers have seen resignations rise by 60 percent compared to 2019. On average, one police department closes each month.
The stakes could not be higher. A 10 percent increase in police employment reduces violent crime by 13 percent. Every dollar invested in policing is estimated to save $1.63 in costs to victims of crime, and each additional officer prevents, on average, four violent crimes and fifteen property crimes annually. More officers also cuts down average response times, directly increasing the likelihood of that crime being solved and the victims receiving closure.
So how did we get here?
Part of this dip was always likely to come. A generation of officers hired in the 1990s is hitting retirement age. But the deeper problem is what the job does to those who still show up. Officers face roughly twice the rate of PTSD and depression as the general public and are 54 percent more likely to commit suicide. When departments are short staffed, these officers, who already do an incredibly difficult job, are forced to work even longer hours, accelerating the development of these mental health issues and burnout.
Then came the "defund the police" movement. Following George Floyd's death in 2020, budgets were cut, departments were vilified in the press, and officers found themselves facing a culture shifting against them. The Government Accountability Office found that negative public perception is now one of the main reasons officers leave the force, and most officers polled say negative media coverage directly affected their motivation to quit. Simply put, officers are tired of being demonized by the very people they protect. They're saying enough is enough, and those communities are paying the price.
It's time for a reset.
Frank knows firsthand what it takes to be an athlete and can attest that police officer are tactical athletes. They shift from routine patrol to life-or-death confrontations in seconds. Fitness and wellness programs measurably reduce officer stress and improve mental health. Some departments have begun recruiting current and former athletes because of the shared physical traits and emotional intelligence required for both sports and policing. All departments should commit to improving access to and encouraging physical fitness to help their officers perform, and to bring peace to their minds.
Considering the stress and danger of the job, police are not paid nearly enough. Some state legislatures have been proactive in addressing this issue head on. Florida, Tennessee, Missouri, and Nebraska have shown that competitive pay, recruitment bonuses, and education benefits for officers and their families improve recruitment and retention.
When the Birmingham, Alabama Police Department invested in more officers, homicides fell 44 percent in a single year and the homicide clearance rate climbed from between 67 to 87 percent in 2025 to 100 percent this year. In Colorado Springs, more officers meant a 21 percent improvement in response times for the most urgent calls. This led to a 28 percent drop in murders and a 14 percent reduction in property crime in 2025.
Our law enforcement officers deserve a renewed commitment from their leaders and communities. Most Americans, including those in the communities hit hardest by violent crime, want more police, not fewer. Policymakers who act will save lives. Those who don't will watch more homicides go unsolved, more 911 calls go unanswered, and more officers walk away from a calling they answered with pride.
This Police Week, let's honor these heroes with more than words.
* * *
Frank D.Murphy serves as Chair, Athletes for America Coalition and Director of Community Impact.
Brett Tolman, Chair, American Justice
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/when-the-thin-blue-line-breaks-americas-police-staffing-crisis
[Category: ThinkTank]