Category: Uncategorized

Kahlenberg for InsideSources: Trump’s Name Should Never Go on the Kennedy Center

Posted on by Alyssa Brown

For an alternate viewpoint, see “Counterpoint: Trump’s Name Belongs on the Building He Is Saving.

Donald Trump famously likes to put his name on things he builds as monuments to himself. It might be conceited, vain and unseemly, but that is his right.

What he doesn’t have the right to do is permanently plaster his name on the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts. To do so would not just be unlawful. It would be a disgrace.

In a narrow legal sense, Trump’s attempt to foist his name on the Kennedy Center broke the law, a federal judge has ruled, because Congress named the center in honor of the slain president, and only Congress can change the name.

However, there are much more substantive reasons to keep Trump’s name off.  John F. Kennedy stood for patriotism, moral leadership of the Free World, an America proudly open to immigrants, and a country that embraces civil rights for all. It is hard to think of a president more diametrically opposed to Kennedy’s values than Donald J. Trump.

Read more in InsideSources.

Jacoby for Washington Monthly: Europeans Look for Options as Costs Mount in Ukraine

Posted on by Max Sherrill

Ukrainian Finance Minister Serhii Marchenko was in Brussels on September 28, when a Russian drone flew into the National Academy of Sciences, one of the country’s leading research institutes and a symbol of Ukrainian identity. Moscow’s new strategy of round-the-clock bombardment of civilian targets was already more than a month old, but the strike, which killed two academy employees, still came as a shock. The elegant 19th-century building in the center of Kyiv burst into flames, and a huge cloud of black smoke billowed from the open roof as terrified researchers inched out onto window ledges before climbing down ladders to the street.

“War is longer, war is harder,” Marchenko explained soberly to his audience in Belgium. “Russian jet drones are destroying our logistics, our retail storage, our refueling stations, our data centers.” Tax and customs revenues are falling short of expectations, and Kyiv will need more help than anticipated to get through the winter, not to mention the year ahead.

For many in the minister’s audience in Brussels, it isn’t a question of whether to help, but how—where to find the money. Unlike President Donald Trump, who moved last week to lift sanctions on Russian diesel exports, Europe is determined to stand with Ukraine and keep the pressure on Moscow. “There’s no option where we do nothing,” centrist French member of the European Parliament Nathalie Loiseau explained to me a few days after the academy bombing. “We can’t say to Ukraine, ‘Okay, you’re on your own,’” leaving Kyiv to lose a war that many Europeans believe is all that’s stopping Vladimir Putin from turning his guns on NATO.

But after nearly five years of fighting, Europeans are running out of options, which is why the debate is circling back again to an idea proposed and rejected several times in the past—leveraging the Russian Central Bank assets held in European financial institutions.

Kahlenberg and Lin for Washington Monthly: Time to Teach Three Years of High School Civics

Posted on by Alyssa Brown

This fall, millions of students are returning to public schools, where they will be regularly tested on how well they are mastering math and reading but not on how well they understand the American political tradition. They are beginning the school year in a country where the federal government invests 100 times less money in how they learn civics than in how they learn science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).

For a long time, we got away with failing to teach young Americans the genius of our liberal democratic system and why it is worth defending. That’s because both political parties broadly endorsed the system. But in 2026, when the president of the United States routinely attacks liberal democratic norms, and a rising left-wing fringe is calling for repealing large parts of the U.S. Constitution, it’s long past time for a renaissance in teaching young people how to protect their freedoms and to detect the dangers of a demagogue.

The country needs to put the formation of citizens at the center of the educational experience and make it lively and engaging for students. In a new Progressive Policy Institute report, “Teaching American Democracy: Understanding Who We Are as Americans and Why,” we lay out a detailed plan for doing this. We hope both political parties will engage in this effort. Still, we think Democrats, who surveys find face a patriotism deficit of 19 points among working-class voters, have a special political incentive to do so.

Read more in Washington Monthly.

Gold Star Families and Survivors Speak on Deadly Port Shuaiba Attack

Posted on by Alyssa Brown

** Programming note: This week, Domain Awareness is rather abridged, but we promise it’s for good reason! PPI’s national security team is on the move this week, with Mary Guenther representing at the International Aeronautical Conference in Turkey, and Danielle Steitz and Tamar Jacoby on their way to Warsaw for this year’s Warsaw Security Forum. We are excited to be working with the Forum as a programming partner, and are delighted to have Rep. Jason Crow and Rep. Jim Himes leading our delegation. If you or a colleague will be in Warsaw and are interested in engaging with some of PPI’s side programming, please feel free to reach out to Danielle Steitz or John Michael Dieng — we’d love to see you there!

THIS WEEK’S
TOP STORIES

Gold Star Families and Survivors Speak on Deadly Port Shuaiba Attack

By Danielle Steitz

The Associated Press this week published a moving exclusive report that features firsthand accounts and interviews with survivors and family members of those lost in the Iranian attack on Port Shuaiba, Kuwait. The attack, which took place on March 1, 2026, remains the deadliest known attack on U.S. forces to date, with six soldiers killed and dozens more injured by an Iranian drone strike that targeted the Army’s tactical operations center at Port Shuaiba. New survivor accounts describe Army leaders’ decision-making around force protection at Port Shuaiba despite a shortage of counter-drone defenses and intelligence assessments that identified the port as a likely Iranian target, raising questions as to whether the loss of life could have been avoided.

PPI Expert Assessment: 

Danielle Steitz, Director of National Security Policy: One of the most striking aspects of the interviews with soldiers deployed at Port Shuaiba was how clearly unprepared they believed the installation was for the exact kind of Iranian drone attack they experienced. One survivor even commented that the unit’s safety officer, MAJ Cody Khork, had expressed concerns that low-flying drones were not being considered in the issuance of “all-clear” orders — and yet was pushed by higher-ranking officers to clear soldiers to leave the relative safety of concrete bunkers and return to the operations center. MAJ Khork was one of the six soldiers killed when a low-flying drone smashed through the roof of the operations center just minutes after an all-clear had been issued.

Commanders owe a fundamental duty of care to their soldiers when it comes to force protection; while soldiers understand that they may be ordered into harm’s way to achieve a mission objective, it is incumbent upon commanders to avoid exposing them to unnecessary risk. The Army owes these soldiers and their families a clear-eyed assessment of what went wrong, why force protection warnings and intelligence assessments were disregarded, and why soldiers whose critical work reportedly required them to be within range of Iranian attacks were not adequately prepared or protected.

What We’re Reading:

“Trump’s War on Data Access Has Taken to the Stars” by Mary Guenther and Danielle Steitz in Radically Pragmatic

In a recently published op-ed, PPI’s Head of Space Policy Mary Guenther and Director of National Security Policy Danielle Steitz highlight the Trump administration’s clampdown on commercial remote sensing data over the Middle East, a move that restricts Americans’ access to truth and places ad hoc and indefinite restrictions on the remote sensing data industry. Guenther and Steitz argue that Congress’s attempt to establish a formalized process for these restrictions through the Intelligence Authorization Act is a step in the right direction, but striking the right balance between national security and access to data is critical and requires voices in addition to the national security establishment at the table.

Congress Just Learned an Important Lesson About Collective Bargaining

Posted on by Max Sherrill

Four years.

That is how long it took the staff of Rep. Ro Khanna, one of Congress’s most outspoken supporters of organized labor, to negotiate their first long-term union contract.

That fact should give Congress something to think about as the Senate considers the Faster Labor Contracts Act.

Khanna’s staff voted to unionize in 2022. The bargaining unit was tiny — just eight employees. The member supported the unionization effort. And the resulting agreement dealt with relatively straightforward workplace issues, including salaries, grievance procedures, and working conditions.

Still, reaching a binding agreement took four years.

That doesn’t mean collective bargaining failed. In fact, it may demonstrate precisely the opposite.

Khanna’s chief of staff offered perhaps the best explanation for why negotiations took time: a union contract affects people’s lives, is legally binding, and therefore has to be gotten right.

Exactly.

Collective bargaining is supposed to involve workers and employers sitting across from each other, working through difficult questions and eventually reaching an agreement both sides can live with. Sometimes that happens quickly. Sometimes it doesn’t.

Congress should remember its own experience before imposing a radically different standard on the rest of America’s workplaces.

The Faster Labor Contracts Act, which passed the House in June, attempts to address a legitimate problem. Workers who vote to organize should not be denied a contract because an employer simply refuses to bargain seriously or uses delay as a strategy to undermine a newly formed union.

Supporters of FLCA point to research showing that reaching a first contract currently takes an average of roughly 15 months. They understandably want to prevent employers from running out the clock on workers who have exercised their right to organize.

But FLCA’s solution risks replacing one problem with another.

Under the legislation, an employer must begin bargaining within 10 days of a union’s request. After 90 days without an agreement, either party can request federal mediation. If another 30 days pass without agreement, the dispute can move to a three-person arbitration panel that can impose the terms of the first contract. That agreement can remain binding for two years.

Think about the contrast.

Eight congressional employees negotiating with a strongly pro-union member of Congress took four years to get their agreement right.

FLCA essentially gives private-sector workers and employers roughly four months before the process can move toward having outsiders determine the terms for them.

And those agreements can be vastly more complicated than a congressional office contract.

Imagine negotiations involving hundreds or thousands of employees across multiple facilities, shifts, and job classifications. The parties may have to negotiate wages, health benefits, retirement plans, overtime, scheduling, seniority, job classifications, safety rules, leave policies, grievance procedures, technology and workplace changes.

Increasingly, they may also need to negotiate how artificial intelligence and automation affect jobs and work.

These are not details. They are the substance of people’s livelihoods and businesses.

The irony is hard to miss.

Congress has now seen firsthand that even when management supports unionization, the workers want a contract and the bargaining unit is small, negotiating a first agreement can take considerable time.

Yet Congress is considering telling the private economy that failure to reach agreement in a fraction of that time can justify transferring critical decisions to arbitrators.

There is a better way.

Congress should distinguish between delay and bad-faith delay.

If an employer refuses to come to the table, repeatedly cancels bargaining sessions, withholds necessary information, or otherwise attempts to frustrate workers’ right to organize, labor law should provide meaningful and timely consequences.

Workers shouldn’t have to wait years simply because an employer hopes their union will disappear.

But when employers and workers are bargaining seriously, government should give them the space to bargain.

The goal of labor policy shouldn’t be the fastest possible contract. It should be a durable contract negotiated by the people who actually have to live under it.

That distinction matters for workers as much as it does for employers.

A government-imposed agreement isn’t necessarily the agreement workers would have negotiated themselves. Bargaining is about tradeoffs. Workers might accept one wage structure in return for stronger health benefits, different scheduling protections or better job security. Employers likewise understand operational realities that an outside arbitration panel may not.

Those choices belong, as much as reasonably possible, to the people at the bargaining table.

There is an important lesson here for both parties.

Republicans shouldn’t treat unions as an obstacle to economic growth. Workers have a legitimate right to organize and bargain collectively.

Democrats shouldn’t assume that supporting workers requires Washington to dictate how quickly bargaining must conclude.

A modern pro-worker agenda should defend the right to organize, insist on genuine good-faith bargaining and punish those who deliberately subvert the process — while recognizing that genuine negotiation takes time.

Ro Khanna and his staff ultimately reached an agreement. That is something worth celebrating.

But the four years it took them to do so should also teach Congress some humility.

If lawmakers believe their own employees deserve the time necessary to negotiate a contract carefully, America’s workers and employers deserve that same consideration.

Collective bargaining works best when government protects the right to bargain — not when government replaces bargaining with a stopwatch.

U.S. Farm Income Down $9 Billion This Year; Expenses Up $5 billion

Posted on by Max Sherrill

U.S. farm income down $9 billion this year; expenses up $5 billion

THE NUMBERS:  Farm bankruptcies* –

2026 >400?
2025   340
2024   234
2023 150
2022 185

* National Center for Agricultural Law. They count 208 farm bankruptcies from January to June 2026.

WHAT THEY MEAN:

The National Agricultural Law Center’s sad tally finds farm bankruptcies up 45% in 2025, and (through June) another 11% this year: 25 farm failures in California, 17 in Arkansas, 14 in Indiana, 12 in Texas, and so forth. Data from the Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service glumly explains:

“Inflation-adjusted NFI [“Net Farm Income” = total farm income minus total farm expenses] is expected to decrease by 5.5 percent from 2025 to $158.4 billion in 2026. Farm production expenses are projected to remain comparable to the 2025 level, increasing by $7.1 billion (1.5 percent) in 2026, after adjusting for inflation.

In sum, per ERS, after adjustments for inflation, America’s 1.9 million farms will cost $7 billion more to run this year than in 2025, and their 3.4 million operators will earn about $9 billion less.

What’s happened? Farm incomes and costs often vary for reasons that are hard to change and sometimes beyond human control: weather patterns, production booms overseas, that sort of thing. This year’s rural stress is different: U.S. government decisions in 2025 and 2026 simultaneously raised farm costs and diminished farmers’ income. Three points:

Direct tariff costs: Since February 2025, Trump administration tariff increases have been raising costs. The Commerce Department’s list of “national security” tariffs has shifted and changed over the past year, but currently puts new tariffs of 15% on plows and harvesters, 25% on “screws and bolts,” 10% on wood, and 50% on “barbed wire of a kind used for fencing.” The White House’s “IEEPA” tariffs of last year, and their recent “forced labor law” replacement, put tariffs ranging from 10% to 30% on hoes, tools, irrigation equipment, pesticides, and lots of other supplies. So fencing, repairs, harvesting and irrigation, weeding and spraying for bugs, etc., all cost more. This, in turn, as Creighton University’s September “Rural Mainstreet Index” survey of rural bankers in 10 western and midwest states concludes, brings under-investment in equipment:

    “The 2026 conflict in Iran and tariffs on imported steel/aluminum have created even more volatility and reluctance among farmers and ranchers to purchase new farm equipment.”

War costs: Meanwhile, this year’s war with Iran has pushed fertilizer prices up about 20% as compared with the rates as of January 2025, and diesel fuel prices — diesel runs tractors, harvesters, irrigation equipment, trucking — from $3.70/gallon to $6.35/gallon. That means about $4,000 a year in extra production costs per farm, and pressure on family budgets as well: Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook notes that about a quarter of rural household expenses are transport costs.

Lost export income: Meanwhile, countries on the receiving end of tariffs sometimes hit back. The U.S. is the world’s top agricultural exporter – per the WTO, American farms and ranches sell about 11% of the world’s $2.4 trillion in worldwide exports, second only to the 27 combined EU countries — and relies on sales to foreign customers for about 20% of farm receipts. Last year’s totals range from 156 tons of California grapes shipped to sunny Fiji in the South Pacific, through $10,000 worth of biscuits to the stormy Faroe Islands, and 159 tons of sorghum to Eritrea on the Red Sea. Three countries in particular — China, Canada, and Mexico — usually account for half of U.S. annual farm exports. A top-six list as of 2024 puts this in context:

Market Export Value Top Products
World $176.5 billion Soybeans, corn, beef, nuts, dairy
Mexico $30.2 billion Corn, pork, dairy, soybeans, poultry
Canada $29.6 billion Breads & pastas, fresh fruit, vegetables
China $24.4 billion Soybeans, beef, cotton
All Other $92.3 billion –

China and Canada have been particular tariff targets, and both — China in particular — have hit back. The $24 billion in exports in 2024 to China fell to $8 billion last year: soybean sales down from $12.6 billion to $3.0 billion, wheat $440 million to $16 million, beef $1.6 billion to $0.5 billion, pistachio nuts $842 million to $33 million. This year’s tariff ‘truce’ has added back about $2 billion, but remains far below earlier years. Most sales to Canada (the second-largest U.S. farm customer, and top for fresh fruit and vegetables, eggs, wine, and juices) held up through the summer. Not all, though: the fresh produce export total dropped by 10% ($400 million), and wines, beer, and liquor by two-thirds. As to the rest, the Canadian government is pretty actively trying to find new sources, and will likely do so unless Congress reverses the Trump administration’s mystifying lurch into a northern border “trade war.”

So: Income down, operating costs up, and a $19.5 billion jump in emergency aid only partially closing the gap. That can’t go on indefinitely. In the extreme cases, as the Agricultural Law Center’s bankruptcy tallies suggest, it stops pretty suddenly.

FURTHER READING

PPI’s four principles for response to tariffs and economic isolationism:

  • Defend the Constitution and oppose rule by decree;
  • Connect tariff policy to growth, work, prices and family budgets, and living standards;
  • Stand by America’s neighbors and allies;
  • Offer a positive alternative

The National Center for Agricultural Law charts an ominous rise in farm bankruptcies.

Farm Bureau perspective, hoping a “trade truce” with China will restore lost markets.

Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook assesses the rural economy.

Creighton University surveys rural bankers on regional economic trends.

And the Sacramento Bee on Del Monte’s Maryville peach cannery and the impact of its collapse.

Data:

USDA’s Economic Research Service reports on farm income and wealth.

ERS on export shares of production and receipts.

USDA’s “Global Agricultural Trade System” database. A more complete breakout, with the top six export markets and other world regions as of 2024:

Market Export Value Top Products
World $176.5 billion Soybeans, corn, beef, nuts, dairy
Mexico   $30.2 billion Corn, pork, dairy, soybeans, poultry
Canada   $29.6 billion Breads & pastas, fresh fruit, vegetables
China   $24.4 billion Soybeans, beef, cotton
European Union   $12.8 billion Almonds, pistachios, soybeans, corn
Japan   $11.9 billion Corn beef, pork, soybeans
Korea     $8.5 billion Beef, pork, wheat, soybeans
All Other   $59.1 billion –
..ASEAN   $13.1 billion Soybeans, cotton, wheat, dairy
…CA/Caribbean     $9.6 billion Corn, pork, dairy, poultry
…Africa     $8.7 billion Soybean meal, corn, ethanol, wheat, dairy
…Middle East     $6.4 billion Nuts, cotton, soybeans, rice
…South Asia     $4.1 billion Nuts, cotton, soybeans
…Africa     $4.0 billion Soybeans, wheat, corn, poultry
…Australia/NZ     $2.1 billion Dairy, pork, fresh fruit
…UK     $2.0 billion Wines & liquors, ethanol, nuts

 

And the WTO’s merchandise trade stats dashboard, with goods trade totals as well as agriculture, manufacturing, and natural resources specifically.

Tariff lists:

Commerce Department’s most recent list of “national security” products related to metals — horseshoes, coat hangers, barbed wire, rivets, non-ag tractors, etc.

And the U.S. Trade Representative Office’s “forced labor law” tariffs.
Big picture:

The most recent comprehensive National Census of Agriculture from USDA (out in 2024, with data for 2022).

And a one-page summary of farmland, operators, and crops reports 3.4 million “producers” on 1.9 million farms and ranches, covering 880 million acres of land. Long-term context for this suggests the very high productivity and technical sophistication of American agriculture, with more food produced by fewer people on less land over time:

  • The total number of farms peaked in 1935 at 6.5 million, dropped fast to about 3 million by 1950 after the adoption of mechanized tractors and harvesters, and has been slowly trending down since.
  • Land area under cultivation is also a bit down, though less dramatically, from 924 million acres in 1926 to 1.02 billion acres in 1976.
  • The count of farm operators and hired workers is very sharply down, from a combined 11 million in 1926 to about 5.5 million in 1976, and now about 4.7 million.

ABOUT ED

Ed Gresser is Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at PPI.

Ed returns to PPI after working for the think tank from 2001-2011. He most recently served as the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Trade Policy and Economics at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). In this position, he led USTR’s economic research unit from 2015-2021, and chaired the 21-agency Trade Policy Staff Committee.

Ed began his career on Capitol Hill before serving USTR as Policy Advisor to USTR Charlene Barshefsky from 1998 to 2001. He then led PPI’s Trade and Global Markets Project from 2001 to 2011. After PPI, he co-founded and directed the independent think tank ProgressiveEconomy until rejoining USTR in 2015. In 2013, the Washington International Trade Association presented him with its Lighthouse Award, awarded annually to an individual or group for significant contributions to trade policy.

Ed is the author of Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy (2007). He has published in a variety of journals and newspapers, and his research has been cited by leading academics and international organizations including the WTO, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund. He is a graduate of Stanford University and holds a Master’s Degree in International Affairs from Columbia Universities and a certificate from the Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union.

Read the full email and sign up for the Trade Fact of the Week.

Workforce Pell Could Reach Nearly 200,000 Students, but Schools Can’t Deliver It Alone

Posted on by Alyssa Brown

The success of the new Workforce Pell Grant program, which for the first time lets federal Pell Grants pay for short-term job training, will largely depend on whether colleges and training providers can partner with the private sector to stand up new programs quickly, according to a new report from the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI).

Authored by Bruno Manno, Senior Advisor at PPI and leader of the What Works Lab, “Implementing Workforce Pell: Facilitating Public-Private Partnerships Toward Student Success” examines the program created by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which extends Pell Grants to high-quality programs as short as eight weeks that prepare students for state-defined high-skill, high-wage, or in-demand jobs. Previously, Pell Grants could be used only for programs longer than 15 weeks. The National Skills Coalition has called the change “one of the largest shifts in federal higher education policy in decades.”

The expansion comes as students and employers rethink the conventional four-year degree. Undergraduate certificate enrollment has risen 14.7% since 2023, outpacing every other degree path, and demand for skilled trades grew 30% between 2022 and 2026. Manno calls the shift “opportunity pluralism,” the idea that students deserve education and training pathways that fit their circumstances rather than a one-size-fits-all route through college.

But implementation will be a challenge. To qualify, programs must meet a 70% completion rate, a 70% job placement rate within 180 days, and an earnings test, and states have considerable leeway in how they carry out the program. The Department of Education projects nearly 200,000 recipients as the program matures, yet many institutions, especially smaller trade and vocational schools, lack the staff, data systems, and technology to launch new programs quickly. Launching a new academic program costs $200,000 to $500,000 on average, and one study found that 30% of new programs failed within five years.

“Workforce Pell could be the most significant change to federal student aid in decades, but a new funding stream doesn’t build a welding program or a medical assistant course by itself,” said Manno. “Schools will need private partners to design courses, stand up technology and connect students with employers. Congress should give those partnerships the certainty to do that work.”

To close those gaps, the report finds:

  • Public-private partnerships, often structured as revenue-sharing agreements, let schools draw on private-sector expertise in program design, technology, marketing, employer engagement and student support while shifting financial risk to the partner

  • Nearly three-quarters of higher education leaders say such partnerships are better equipped than in-house teams to deliver speed, innovation and specialized expertise

  • Employer partners help keep programs aligned with labor market demand, a key requirement for Workforce Pell eligibility

  • States are already putting partnerships to work, from Oklahoma, where CareerTech “career cluster” students posted a 94% placement rate in 2024, to Virginia’s relaunched InternshipsVA initiative and Ohio’s proposed JOBS Act

Manno recommends that Congress codify the “bundled services” guidance issued by the Obama administration in 2011, which allows colleges to share tuition revenue with private partners that provide a package of services. Because that guidance is neither law nor regulation, multiyear partnership agreements could be upended by a future administration, a risk that surfaced in 2023 when the Biden administration moved to tighten rules on colleges’ third-party partners before delaying the effort amid pushback from schools, experts and employers. Lawmakers should act quickly, Manno argues, before lingering uncertainty holds back the program’s full potential.

Read and download the report here.

 

Founded in 1989, PPI is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Find an expert and learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Follow us at @ppi.

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

Implementing Workforce Pell

Posted on by Alyssa Brown

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• Higher education remains an important avenue for individuals to build the skills and knowledge to succeed in careers and create upward economic mobility for themselves and their families. However, rising costs and rapidly evolving workforce needs have made the conventional four-year degree path impractical, and unattainable, for many.

• Over the past two decades, post-secondary institutions have made steady progress to align with labor market demand and the “toolbelt generation’s” preferences. The rise of alternative education options — trade and vocational schools, certificates and badges, and “micro-credential” programs — is helping better prepare Americans for in-demand jobs of today and tomorrow.

• This rethinking of education and training after high school promotes opportunity pluralism — the idea that students should have access to many paths to a good job, not just the traditional degree pathway. It integrates rigorous academics, technical skills, practical experience, and professional networks.

• The Workforce Pell Grant program, which was officially launched this year, promises to help more people from more backgrounds access higher education options that meet their learning and career goals. The program’s success will largely depend on implementation, which policymakers and stakeholders alike should help shape.

• Public-private partnerships — which enable schools to draw on the private sector’s expertise and share risk — are critical to both the Workforce Pell’s success and the continued growth of non-traditional learning options.

• Lawmakers should protect these relationships, and thereby empower institutions to continue to innovate and better serve students, by codifying current governing guidance into law, which will eliminate uncertainty and remove the potential for politicization.

Read the full report. 

Guenther and Steitz on Radically Pragmatic: Trump’s War on Data Access Has Taken to the Stars

Posted on by Alyssa Brown

President Donald Trump’s war on facts has reached the final frontier. Having already undermined federal data sources on everything from hunger to weather for its own self-interested ends, the administration has spent much of this year trying to squelch information about the Iran War by clamping down on the public’s access to data and images shot from space.

Congress looks ready to respond to this blatant censorship effort as part of an upcoming intelligence bill. But while it’s encouraging that lawmakers want to curb this administration’s abuses of power, the solution they are contemplating allows defense and intelligence agencies, organizations with cultures of information sharing on a “need-to-know” basis, to further clamp down on data availability — albeit for less politically charged reasons — without having anyone at the table arguing for the benefits of public access.

Back in March, the government reportedly asked commercial remote sensing companies like Planet Labs to delay release of the data and pictures they gather from space of much of the Middle East, in light of the Iran War. At the time, embarrassing photos of burning oil infrastructure and damaged American bases running in the press had undercut White House claims to have defeated Tehran’s military. The request was framed as voluntary, but as one geospatial analyst put it: “When your largest customer is also the government that regulates you, the line between voluntary and involuntary gets very thin.”

These restrictions were originally slated to last two weeks. Instead, they have lingered for the better part of six months, limiting information about the region to the subset of customers who comply with the companies’ restrictive managed access policies. Publications like the New York Times and The Washington Post, which frequently purchase images for their reporting, have used them to identify evidence of potential war crimes. Their access has been turned off indefinitely.

All of this has deprived everyday Americans of crucial news on the conflict — much to the alarm of some soldiers sent to fight it. Just last month, active service members anonymously sent photos to the press of the destruction of American bases out of concern that, in their words, “this is major damage to our bases that hasn’t been communicated to the American public…we’re standing there with our eyes closed getting punched in the face.”

Read more on Radically Pragmatic.

The District of Columbia Has the Nation’s Lowest Carbon Emissions but Pays the Highest Price to Cut Them, PPI Finds

Posted on by Alyssa Brown

Washington, D.C., emits less carbon per person than any state in the country, yet energy costs in the District have climbed more than 93% over the past five years, the steepest increase in the nation, according to a new report from the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI). The report finds that D.C.’s aggressive local climate mandates are driving up bills for the residents least able to afford them while delivering no measurable effect on global climate change.

Authored by Neel Brown, Managing Director at PPI, and John Kemp, an internationally recognized energy markets expert, “Washington DC: Lowest in Carbon Emissions, Highest in Increased Costs” examines the District’s energy profile, emissions record, and climate policies. It concludes that by trying to squeeze the last tons of carbon out of an already low-emitting system, D.C. has chosen the most expensive possible path to its net-zero goals.

D.C. emits less than 4 metric tons of carbon dioxide per resident, one-quarter of the national average of 14 tons. With more than 11,000 people per square mile, over 120 times the national average, the District combines exceptional density with small homes, heavy transit use and a near absence of manufacturing, making it the lowest-emitting jurisdiction in the country. Commuters use public transportation at seven times the national rate, and since 2005 the District’s total emissions have fallen 2.6% per year, more than twice the national pace.

Costs, however, are moving in the opposite direction. Inflation and surging wholesale prices across the PJM Interconnection, the regional grid strained by data center growth in northern Virginia, have pushed up bills throughout the Mid-Atlantic. But Maryland and New Jersey, also in PJM, saw increases of about 50% over the same period. The report attributes D.C.’s steeper climb in large part to local green energy mandates and estimates the District’s implied cost of carbon, or the price of abating one metric ton of CO2, at $750 to $870, roughly double that of the next-most-expensive states, Massachusetts and New Jersey, at $300 to $400 per ton.

“Washington is already the lowest carbon-emitting jurisdiction in the country on a per-person basis, and it is paying more than anyone else to squeeze out the last few tons,” said Brown. “Those costs fall hardest on renters and low-income families who can’t put solar panels on their roofs. Before going further, policymakers should ask whether each additional dollar is buying any real climate benefit.”

The report finds:

  • D.C.’s Renewable Portfolio Standard, which requires 100% renewable electricity by 2032 and a growing in-District solar carve-out reaching 15% by 2041, has driven utility compliance costs from $50.6 million in 2018 to $272.6 million in 2025
  • High solar credit prices allow property owners with rooftop panels to earn $2,200 to $3,200 a year in passive income, while more than half of households who are low-income or renters receive none of those subsidies and pay higher bills to fund them
  • The District’s 2022 net-zero building mandate, which effectively bans natural gas in new construction and major renovations, pushes new demand onto the grid just as regional capacity tightens and prices surge
  • Low-income residents in Wards 7 and 8 already carry energy burdens triple those of residents in wealthier Ward 3
  • Residential electricity prices rose 24% in 2025 and another 23% in the first five months of 2026 compared with a year earlier

The report recommends that D.C. replace rigid, technology-specific mandates, including the solar carve-out and net-zero building standard, with market-based standards; lean into the District’s natural advantages by investing in energy efficiency and public transportation; and revisit the rationale for its net-zero goals, weighing the burden on low-income ratepayers against what the policies actually deliver for the global climate. Instead of working backward from an arbitrary net-zero date, the report argues, policymakers should subject each new climate policy to a rigorous cost-benefit test.

Read and download the report here.

Founded in 1989, PPI is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Find an expert and learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Follow us at @ppi.

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

Washington DC: Lowest in Carbon Emissions, Highest in Increased Costs

Posted on by Alyssa Brown

Washington, D.C., has the lowest carbon emissions per capita of any state in the U.S. at less than 4 metric tons per person (See Fig.1). That is the good news. The bad? Its rate of increase in the cost of energy is also the highest in the country at over 93% over the last 5 years.

This drastic increase in cost is due to several factors, including inflation, increased wholesale prices from PJM, and, crucially, local green energy mandates. Ratepayers around the country are facing increasing prices from inflation. But Maryland and New Jersey, also in the PJM service area, faced just 50% increases in cost over the same period. By trying to squeeze out the relatively small amount of carbon in its electricity grid, DC has chosen a policy path to meet its ambitious net zero goals in the most expensive way. Some estimates put the city’s implied cost of carbon, the price tag for abating a single metric ton of CO2 emissions, at $750 to $870. The next closest states are Massachusetts and New Jersey, both of which are at $300 to $400 per metric ton (Implied cost of carbon is the calculated financial cost per metric ton of greenhouse gas reduced by a specific policy or technology mandate).

It must be noted that carbon emissions are a global problem. The reality is that abating small amounts of carbon from the lowest-emitting state adds tremendous burdens on low-income residents while achieving no measurable impact on global climate change.

Read the full report. 

Marshall for The Hill: On Immigration, Democrats Should Look to the Nordic Model

Posted on by Alyssa Brown

As Democrats and other center-left parties struggle to understand why working-class voters have turned against them, they reach readily for economic explanations. Yet most flinch from confronting another potent driver of blue-collar anger — uncontrolled immigration.

Of course, that’s partly an economic issue too. But it also illuminates the deep rift between elite and popular opinion on emotive questions of national sovereignty, cultural identity and democratic agency in deciding who can enter one’s country and become a citizen.

Stopping illegal immigration has been President Trump’s most reliable rallying cry. His call to wall America off from a flood of “criminal aliens” in 2016 helped him forge a strong bond with non-college voters. He went back to the immigration well in his 2024 comeback, when those voters again ranked the issue as a top concern, second only to high living costs.

Hostility to mass migration also is the rocket fuel propelling neo-nationalist populists in Europe. These include the far-right Alternative for Germany party, which recently made startling gains in state elections; France’s National Rally, now leading polls ahead of next year’s presidential election, and the United Kingdom’s fast-rising Reform Party.

Read more in The Hill.

Senate Permitting Deal Tracks Closely With PPI Blueprint for Democratic Permitting Reform

Posted on by Alyssa Brown

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) today applauded the introduction of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026. The bill is a major bipartisan breakthrough that would help America build faster and more cheaply, lower energy costs, and strengthen its competitive edge. The bill delivers on Congress’s promise to reduce costs for working Americans and advance environmental justice by accelerating the infrastructure needed to deliver reliable, cleaner power to communities that have long borne the brunt of high bills and pollution.

Introduced Wednesday by Sens. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), the bill unites the Republican chairs and Democratic ranking members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources and Environment and Public Works committees behind a plan to speed federal environmental reviews, give approved projects certainty that their permits will stand, and require data centers to pay all of their associated transmission costs.

The bill closely tracks the agenda in “Bureaucracy Blocks Green Progress: 9 Ideas for Democratic Permitting Reform,” authored by Colin Mortimer, Senior Director of Partnerships at PPI. Released in November 2025, the report argued that Democrats have much to gain by engaging in the permitting debate and set out to expand the proposals they could bring to negotiations with Republicans, warning that durable reform could not happen through one-party action.

“Permitting reform has stalled for years because Democrats feared losing environmental protections and Republicans feared a deal that would only help renewables. Sens. Heinrich, Lee, Capito and Whitehouse have shown there is a bargain that works for both sides,” said Mortimer. “This bill would get power lines, clean energy and critical infrastructure built faster and lower costs for families while keeping strong safeguards in place.”

The report documented the toll of the current system. According to the American Clean Power Association, permitting delays have cost more than $100 billion in lost investment, 150,000 U.S. jobs and 550 million metric tons of additional carbon emissions this decade, and the Business Roundtable estimates that about $1.5 trillion in investment is awaiting federal permits. Major clean energy projects such as the SunZia transmission line have taken nearly two decades to move from conception to construction.

“Permitting reform is an affordability issue and an environmental justice issue. Black and Hispanic families, including many in communities represented by members of the Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Hispanic Caucus, spend a larger share of their income on energy and shoulder the cost when energy supplies do not meet demand,” said Neel Brown, Managing Director at PPI. “Building more supply and new transmission faster means lower bills and lower emissions. That is why getting this bill across the finish line matters.”

The bill reflects the report’s recommendations in seven areas:

  1. Environmental review shot clocks: PPI’s report called for strict enforceable deadlines for completing environmental reviews, after which a decision must be issued, citing models such as Washington state’s two-year deadline for environmental impact statements. The bill would strengthen enforcement of the existing one-year deadline for environmental assessments and two-year deadline for environmental impact statements, and require agencies to decide on outstanding permits within set windows once reviews are complete.

  2. Limits on the scope of review: The report urged Congress to codify the Supreme Court’s 8-0 ruling in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, which held that agencies need not analyze upstream or downstream impacts of activities they do not directly regulate, and to further define reasonable limits on the scope of review. The bill would require courts to give substantial deference to agencies on the scope and contents of their environmental reviews.

  3. A 150-day statute of limitations: Because lawsuits under the National Environmental Policy Act can be filed up to six years after a final agency decision, the report recommended extending the 150-day window Congress set for surface transportation projects to all major federal permitting decisions, providing predictable timelines while preserving judicial review. The bill would set a 150-day deadline for challenges under environmental review, clean water, endangered species, and historic preservation laws, and for challenges to energy, mining, and forest restoration approvals under any federal law.

  4. A “single front door” for federal permits: Drawing on reforms in New South Wales, Australia, and the Netherlands, the report called for a lead agency and coordinator responsible for one consolidated timetable, one environmental record and one final decision, with agency reviews conducted in parallel rather than in sequence. The bill would require concurrent agency reviews, a single environmental document and binding resolution of interagency disagreements.

  5. Federal authority over power lines: The report recommended expanding FERC’s backstop siting authority to approve interstate transmission projects when states are slow to act or deny approval, preventing single-state vetoes of regionally necessary energy projects. The bill would strengthen federal transmission approval authority, including by dropping the requirement that lines sit in a federally designated corridor, and allow federal and state reviews of major lines to proceed simultaneously.

  6. Resources and shared data for faster reviews: Arguing that permitting reform only works if agencies have the people and tools to carry it out, the report called for added review capacity and a centralized permitting repository of environmental data and past reviews, an idea the Department of Energy has begun to explore. The bill would authorize a $20 million annual permitting fund from 2027 to 2033, $150 million a year through 2031 for endangered species consultations, and shared data systems to help agencies reuse information from previous reviews.

  7. Protection for approved projects: Pointing to presidents of both parties who have halted projects after approval, from the Keystone XL pipeline to the Revolution Wind offshore wind farm, the report called for preventing the unilateral revocation of duly approved projects. The bill would protect existing permits from cancellation or interference, with defined exceptions for court orders, violations of law, fraud, and urgent harm supported by new information.

The report also recommended two reforms the bill does not adopt: a “loser-pays” rule requiring unsuccessful plaintiffs to cover litigation costs, and revenue-sharing arrangements, like those in France and North Dakota, that deliver direct benefits such as property tax relief to towns and cities that host energy infrastructure. The bill does advance the report’s broader goal of reducing litigation delays by limiting who can sue and barring courts from halting projects over NEPA paperwork errors.

Read and download the November 2025 report here.

Founded in 1989, PPI is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Find an expert and learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Follow us at @ppi.

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

U.S. Military Completes Withdrawal from Iraq

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Danielle Steitz

Lately, it seems like every day begins with a torrent of headlines from an increasingly complex and rapidly changing global landscape. Wars in Europe and the Middle East prompt fears of escalation and geopolitical confrontation, while proliferating technologies like artificial intelligence threaten to reshape the security landscape. Political, security, economic, and technological concerns are increasingly intertwined, making the global landscape fraught with tensions and trade-offs. And in the United States, the erratic and unprincipled leadership of the Trump administration is confounding America’s allies while emboldening her adversaries, creating a more unpredictable and dangerous world.

PPI seeks to offer a path for navigating this increasingly chaotic global environment through understanding the domains in which we operate, which is why we are proud to announce the launch of Domain Awareness. While there are countless stories each day that demand attention, PPI’s new weekly digest offers a curated list of the top stories that policymakers and practitioners need to read, paired with commentary from PPI’s policy experts. We hope you will join us each week as we seek to understand current events and trends, and as we offer pragmatic policy solutions towards a more stable and secure future.

THIS WEEK’S
TOP STORIES

U.S. Military Completes Withdrawal from Iraq

By Danielle Steitz

On Wednesday, the U.S. military formally withdrew from Iraq, bringing two decades of U.S. military presence to a close. The departure of the final 2,500 Americans stationed in Erbil marks the end of Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq, which brought American forces back to the country in 2014 as part of a multinational military campaign against jihadist Islamic State forces. The departure of the American military contingent from Iraq marks a milestone moment, with Iraqis commemorating the withdrawal with a three-day “celebration of sovereignty” while expressing complicated feelings about the legacy of American military presence and concern over Iraq’s future in the face of growing threats from Iranian-backed militia groups operating in the country.

PPI Expert Assessment: 

Danielle Steitz, Director of National Security Policy: Iraq is again solely responsible for its own security, leading some Iraqi citizens to question what will be different this time than in 2011, when American withdrawal and weak Iraqi governance opened the door for the rapid spread of ISIS. While Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve will continue its counter-ISIS mission from its relocated headquarters in Jordan, the Iraqi government must now rein in increasingly powerful militia groups that Iran views as key partners in its conflict with the U.S. and America’s Middle East allies. The U.S. withdrawal was negotiated by the Biden administration in 2024 and therefore predates the Trump administration’s war with Iran, but when paired with an ongoing review of U.S. presence in the Middle East in light of the conflict, it reflects a bipartisan desire to move past the legacy of the “forever wars” of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iran War Diplomatic Efforts and Domestic Politics

by Danielle Steitz

As the Iran War stretches into its seventh month, efforts to find a diplomatic resolution to the conflict continue, but with little to show for it. Qatari shuttle diplomacy and indirect talks on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly between U.S. and Iranian negotiators led to an Iranian proposal that reportedly called for restarting nuclear talks and reopening the Strait of Hormuz after the U.S. lifts both its naval blockade and its oil sanctions and reinstates a region-wide ceasefire. President Trump rejected this proposal and acknowledged that he may resume strikes against Iran – much to the dismay of Republican candidates in tightly contested elections, who are increasingly calling for the war to end quickly. 

PPI Expert Assessment: 

Danielle Steitz, Director of National Security Policy: Both the Trump administration and the Iranian regime seem to believe that time is on their side, and that dragging out the conflict to maximally inflict economic and political damage on the other is their best path to victory — effectively turning the conflict into a waiting game to see who blinks first. But with polling data continually showing overwhelming American disapproval of the war and gas prices spiking to a new highest recorded average diesel price, members of the president’s party are increasingly concerned that the war will prove to be a drag on their electoral chances in a midterm election that is poised to be a referendum on the president’s performance. With the economy and affordability continuing to be a chief concern for Americans and control of both the House and Senate in the balance, the pressure to bring the war to an end appears to be mounting — but thus far, it has yet to sway Trump from his “inflict economic pressure and wait it out” approach. 

Starship Test Launch and Space Implications

by Mary Guenther

The next-generation launch vehicle from SpaceX successfully completed its first orbital test flight this week. This Starship vehicle will be dramatically more capable than SpaceX’ current workhorse, the Falcon class of vehicles, allowing for each launch to deploy 20 times more Starlink broadband satellites. SpaceX launches the majority of government payloads for civil and national security agencies alike, and NASA is reliant on Starship for its Artemis program. 

PPI Expert Assessment: 

Mary Guenther, Head of Space Policy: The Department of Defense currently uses the Falcon class of vehicles for most of its national security launches through the National Security Space Launch (NSSL) program. SpaceX plans to phase out the Falcon class of vehicles after it completes the missions it’s currently on contract for to allow the company to focus on Starship. The Starship will be a transformational capability for the American space program, opening possibilities for crewed and cargo missions that nothing on the market can offer today. A number of companies’ spacecraft and scientific missions in process today are only feasible because of the Starship. However, there are questions about whether there could be a gap between the Falcon 9 and the Starship, which would exacerbate launch capacity constraints for companies looking to fly their spacecraft.

Retired Spy Satellite Unexpectedly Blew Up in Orbit

by Mary Guenther

A satellite launched by the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) in 1988 shattered in orbit this week, generating a large debris field of space trash that will make it harder to use the popular orbit it was flying in. The orbit is home to over 200 satellites, including aging NOAA weather satellites. The satellite’s mission was to find and listen to Soviet radar systems, though given that the project was fully declassified earlier this year, it’s safe to assume it was retired sometime in the past several decades. It’s unclear whether the breakup of the satellite was caused by an old component rupturing or if it was hit by a small piece of debris.

PPI Expert Assessment: 

Mary Guenther, Head of Space Policy: This is the kind of incident the space community has been concerned about for some time. There are a host of old (primarily) U.S. and Soviet spacecraft and rocket bodies left in orbit that are vulnerable to this kind of event. Modern licensing processes require that satellites deorbit no later than five years after the end of their mission to avoid a build-up of space junk. And there are new companies exploring technologies that would help old or disabled spacecraft deorbit, though it’s unclear at this time whether governments will be interested in contracting them to clean up old satellites from the Cold War era. This incident may spur further thinking in that direction.

Navy Announces Contract for F/A-XX Sixth-Generation Fighter

by Danielle Steitz

The Navy announced this week that it has awarded the contract for its sixth-generation F/A-XX fighter jet to Boeing, a key next step in getting the next generation of fighters into service as a replacement for the F/A-18 Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler airframes. The award had reportedly been delayed for over a year by a fight that saw the White House and Pentagon advocating for delay of the award and reductions to the program’s budget while the U.S. Navy and Congress pressed for rapid fielding of the fighter given its centrality to naval aviation in a potential conflict with China. 

PPI Expert Assessment: 

Danielle Steitz, Director of National Security Policy: It is heartening to see the F/A-XX fighter program overcome the bureaucratic obstacles that had long delayed this contract award. While uncrewed systems like the Collaborative Combat Aircraft will provide a force multiplier to aviators in future conflicts, effective combat deployment of these systems still requires a next-generation strike fighter to “quarterback” and manage the battlespace. This contract being awarded without further delay will help to keep downstream aviation industrial base suppliers engaged and working — ideally without any further disruption or delay in producing and deploying these critical aircraft.

What We’re Reading:

“America’s Next Military Advantage is Trusted Data” by Jeremy Bayer in RealClearDefense

This article clearly identifies the next challenge to tackle in the age of information-integrated military operations: how to ensure data remains protected and verifiable while still enabling sharing and interoperability. American innovation is driving technology solutions forward, but the national security architecture must keep pace in adopting those solutions. 

Surviving Chaos: Geopolitics When the Rules Fail by Mark Leonard

In his new book, Leonard, the co-founder and director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, argues that the international liberal order is collapsing into what he describes as “Un-Order” — a permanent state where there is no longer agreement on fundamental rules, facts, or even the concept of global governance. In navigating this new reality, Leonard argues for leaders to move away from trying to restore a dead system, and instead to adopt the mindset of “artisans,” who embrace improvisation and build resilience in order to weather constant disruption.

Guenther in Satellite Today: FCC Continues Deregulation Push with Environmental Regulations and More Spectrum

Posted on by Max Sherrill

Launch activities are still subject to NEPA review by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which regulates space launch, notes Mary Guenther, head Space Policy at the Progressive Policy Institute, in a policy brief on the issue. “Repeating that analysis at the FCC would be duplicative and wasteful. It is also worth noting that the vast majority of analyses by the FAA result in findings of no significant impact,” Guenther said.

Read more in Satellite Today.

Manno for Philanthropy Daily: Donors, AI, and the Americans Who (Don’t) Trust It

Posted on by Alyssa Brown

Americans aren’t confused about artificial intelligence. They increasingly use it more and understand it better, but they are unconvinced it’s good for them.

A new survey from Gallup and the Special Competitive Studies Project puts it plainly: “Americans’ use of and familiarity with AI have grown, but their trust has not.”

That message should matter to donors asked to fund an AI literacy program, workforce initiative, or research into AI safety and oversight.

The numbers tell a clear story.

Reported AI use jumped from 39 percent of adults in 2025 to 51 percent in 2026, driven mostly by people over 30 catching up to a younger cohort that adopted early. Self-reported knowledge rose from 60 percent to 68 percent.

Trust in AI’s ability to make fair decisions was flat at 28 percent. Nearly two-thirds of Americans say they distrust it outright. Familiarity hasn’t translated into confidence, which should give pause to funders whose theory of change assumes exposure alone will close the trust gap.

The AI economic mood has also soured.

Read more in Philanthropy Daily.