Category: Uncategorized

PPI Warns EU Space Act Could Stall Innovation and Raise Costs Across the Space Industry

Posted on by Alex Terr

WASHINGTON — The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) today released formal comments on the European Commission’s proposed EU Space Act, authored by Mary Guenther, PPI’s Head of Space Policy. In the official filing, Guenther warns that the draft legislation risks slowing innovation, raising costs, and undermining Europe’s ability to compete in the rapidly expanding global space economy.

“Europe’s goal of streamlining space regulation is the right one,” said Guenther. “But as currently written, the EU Space Act would impose layers of new compliance burdens that make it harder — not easier — for European and transatlantic space companies to thrive.”

PPI’s submission identifies several key concerns with the proposal:

  • Regulatory overload: Extensive new requirements could increase satellite manufacturing and launch costs by as much as 30%.
  • Feasibility gaps:  Some provisions, such as strict light pollution limits and whole-of-mission environmental impact calculations, are not yet technologically feasible.
  • Trade barriers: By imposing disproportionate obligations on non-EU companies, the initiative risks functioning as a non-tariff barrier that limits cooperation with U.S. partners.

Guenther recommends that the European Commission dramatically simplify the Act or replace binding mandates with support and incentive-based measures.

“A strong and innovative European space sector strengthens the entire Western alliance,” Guenther added. “The EU should focus on enabling growth and collaboration, not creating red tape that stifles progress.

PPI’s full comments on the EU Space Act are available 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 @PPI.

###

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

Progressive Policy Institute’s Filing with the European Commission Regarding the EU Space Act

Posted on by Alex Terr

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The United States (U.S.) and Europe have a long history of cooperation in space dating back to the very first international satellite, Ariel-1, launched in 1962 as a collaboration between the U.S. and the United Kingdom (U.K.). The Cold War drove international cooperation in the space domain among like-minded nations for both economic and national security purposes. Pooling academic and industrial strengths allowed U.S. and European nations to advance their capabilities faster. That continues today with the European Union and the U.S. partnering on pioneering missions from the James Webb Space Telescope to the European Space Agency (ESA) astronaut who flew on the Axiom-3 mission. Beyond these named missions, the space supply chains — and therefore industries — of the U.S. and EU are highly linked.3 Suffice to say, in a world growing more dangerous, the U.S. and EU must advance their cooperation in space to continue advancing economically and from a national security perspective. An eye towards robust collaboration with the U.S. likely sounds quite naive today, given the brash isolationist tendencies of President Donald Trump and his administration, but, by 2030 — the implementation date of the EU Space Act — the U.S. will likely be under different leadership that is more attentive to the importance of the U.S.-EU relationship. Accordingly, any regulatory regime implemented, regardless of which side of the Atlantic, should continue to allow for international collaboration as well as the growth of the U.S. and EU member nations’ space economies. A strong European space sector benefits the entire Western alliance, and PPI endorses the EC’s intent to make it more globally competitive. As the EU looks at updating — and, to a degree, harmonizing — the space regulatory regime for its member nations, it should prioritize encouraging continued innovation, fair rules for international players, and upholding Western values. There will always be tension between these three priorities, but finding the right balance is vital.

Unfortunately, the EU Space Act does not strike that balance. For starters, the legislation would bog industry down with a laundry list of new regulatory requirements that will increase the cost of manufacturing a satellite by 3-10% with additional cost increases likely imposed by new compliance requirements and a set licensing fee that ranges from the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars on top of those percentage-based increases. These price increases are not minimal and will not make the European space sector more competitive or innovative. Beyond the impact on the European market, the initiative imposes its long list of requirements on any company doing business in the EU, some of which are not yet feasible, and which, in total, amount to a non-tariff barrier. While the initiative provides the option to accept other nations’ regulatory regimes as equivalent to its requirements, saving companies in some nations from regulatory double jeopardy, it is unclear whether that option will be exercised. Given the clear, disproportionate targeting of U.S. companies and stated goal of reducing foreign dependencies within the European space sector, it seems unlikely that the U.S. will receive an equivalency determination.

The EC should take a holistic look at what is absolutely necessary for this regulatory regime and dramatically simplify the proposal or, better yet, heed Finland and Sweden’s call to skip binding mandates and focus on support and incentive measures. Otherwise, the European Union’s space industry is doomed to be uncompetitive globally and will put a drag on America’s industry as well — just as China is aggressively pursuing leadership in space for economic and national security reasons.

Read the full comments. 

Manno for Forbes: Dual Enrollment Blends High School And College—Next Step Is Jobs

Posted on by Max Sherrill

Allowing high school students to earn both college and high school credit at the same time has gone from boutique to baseline. These dual enrollment programs blend the last years of high school with the first year of college, often in classes taught on high school campuses. They increasingly link coursework to career pathways that lead to good jobs. They are also an underrated form of K–12 public school choice.

Done well, dual enrollment gives students a first taste of college-level expectations, lowers the cost of a credential, and accelerates the path to a good first job. Done poorly, it devolves into random acts of dual credit, with scattered classes that don’t apply to a pathway, credits that don’t transfer, and equity gaps that widen instead of close.

Keep reading in Forbes.

Manno for The Stanford Social Innovation Review: A New AI Career Ladder

Posted on by Alex Terr

The growing use of generative AI in the workplace raises a paradox for entry-level workers. The very tasks that once trained new workers—such as summarizing meetings, cleaning data, and drafting memos—are increasingly automated. This means that entry-level jobs today require experience that entry-level roles no longer supply.

AI has cannibalized the routine, low-risk work tasks that used to teach newcomers how to operate in complex organizations. Without those task rungs, the climb up the opportunity ladder into better employment options becomes steeper—and for many, impossible. This is not a temporary glitch. AI is reorganizing work, reshaping what knowledge and skills matter, and redefining how people are expected to acquire them.

The consequences ripple from individual career starts to the broader American promise of economic and social mobility, which includes both financial wealth and social wealth that comes from the networks and relationships we build. Yet the same technology that complicates the first job can help us reinvent how experience is earned, validated, and scaled. If we use AI to widen—not narrow—access to education, training, and proof of knowledge and skill, we can build a stronger career ladder to the middle class and beyond. A key part of doing this is a redesign of education, training, and hiring infrastructure.

In the words of Burning Glass Institute President Matt Sigelman, “AI doesn’t automate away jobs. It automates tasks. Whether that opens time to take on more valuable tasks, whether new efficiencies unlock latent demand that actually grows opportunity, or whether employers decide to take the savings depends on a range of factors and plays out over time… First, we need an accessible infrastructure.”

Read more in the Stanford Social Innovation Review. 

Congress has Passed 19 ‘Trade Negotiating Authority’ Bills

Posted on by Alex Terr

FACT: Congress has passed 19 ‘trade negotiating authority’ bills.

THE NUMBERS: U.S. trade policy –

Treaties of Amity and Commerce*, 1789-1930 93
Congressional tariff bills, 1789-1930 45
Congressional trade negotiating authority bills, 1934-2015 19
U.S. trade agreements related to tariffs,** 1934-2015 62

* A generic term; sometimes the actual titles were “Amity, Commerce, and Navigation,” “Friendship and Commerce,” etc.
** Counting RTAA agreements, GATT and WTO agreements, and Free Trade Agreements.

WHAT THEY MEAN: 

Dire predictions from Mr. Trump, as the Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments on his “national emergency” tariff decrees next Wednesday:

“If this country is not allowed to have the President of the United States negotiate on behalf of it with tariffs, we are put in a position where we’re going to be a third-world country. … I think it’s the most important case that we’re going to have for many, many years to come.”

Last week’s antics suggest good reason to restrain presidents on this topic. Apparently to publicize his personal distress over an advertisement run by the Province of Ontario, Mr. Trump announced a plan to place 10% tariffs on everything Americans buy from Canada. (The ad ran during some baseball playoff games. It — accurately — replays parts of a 1987 radio address on tariffs and trade by the late President Ronald Reagan, including a pitch for duty-free U.S.-Canada trade.) If this actually happens, the effect would be a 10% tax (“surcharge” in the Treasury Secretary’s preferred usage) on all of Maine’s $2.5 billion heating oil supply this winter, half the fertilizer Kansans use in spring planting, auto parts for Midwest factories, etc.

Families now budgeting for January utility bills, and farmers and factory managers worried about rising costs, are likely better off without this sort of thing. Should Americans still worry, though, about the more abstract question of “presidents negotiating on tariffs with foreigners”? Not really. Some background on the case and the record of presidents and tariffs:

The Justices next week will hear the administration’s appeal of two tariff cases it lost this summer, V.O.S. Selections v. Trump and Learning Resources v. Trump. Both successfully challenged the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) to declare “states of emergency” and overwrite the Congressionally authorized Harmonized Tariff Schedule with a new and ever-changing tariff system through a series of Executive Orders.

The basic question, then, is not about “whether presidents can negotiate on tariffs with foreigners,” but about the “separation of powers” within the United States — specifically, whether presidents can override Congress’ Constitutional authority to set rates for “Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises” by using the IEEPA law to rule by decree. No previous president ever claimed a right to do that. Lots of them had tariff policies nonetheless, and often achieved what they wanted.

1789-1933: From the early republic to the Great Depression, Congress set tariff rates directly by passing bills. The U.S. International Trade Commission counted 42 such tariff laws between 1789 and 1916. Adding three more in 1921, 1922, and 1930 yields a total of 45. Presidents frequently influenced these bills: Polk and Wilson wanted low rates and got them through the “Walker” and “Underwood” tariffs; Harding and Hoover wanted high rates and likewise got them through the “Fordney-McCumber” and “Smoot-Hawley” bills. They didn’t negotiate these rates with foreign countries, though. Instead, they handled a complementary international job: As Congress set rates, presidents negotiated 93 “Treaties of Amity and Commerce” with mutual guarantees of “most favored nation” tariff status, non-discriminatory tax and port access for merchant ships, humanitarian aid for shipwrecked sailors, etc. Samples: the United Kingdom (1794, negotiated personally by John Jay, on temporary leave from his job as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; and nearly wrecked the Federalist Party), the Hanseatic Republic, the Kingdom of Siam
(1833, very much a work of art as a single nine-foot parchment with calligraphy in English, Thai, Chinese, and Portuguese),  and the Empire of Brazil (1828, excludes “bucklers, breastplates, helmets, coats of mail” and other evocative military kit).

1934-2024: Concluding that the 1930 Congressional tariff increase had worsened the Depression, and that the overall bill-and-treaty program ignored U.S. exporters, the first New Deal Congress and the Roosevelt administration designed a different approach which remained in use up to 2024. This involved setting tariff rates through international agreements, with Congress writing up policy goals in advance, presidents handling the negotiating, and Congress approving the result or choosing not to. To this end, Congress passed 19 “trade negotiating authority” bills from the first Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act in 1934 through President Kennedy’s “Trade Expansion Act of 1962” to the “Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act” under President Obama in 2015. Presidents used them to conclude 62 trade agreements, starting with tariff-reduction accords with Cuba and Brazil in 1934, and moving on through multilateral “GATT” agreements, FTAs, WTO agreements ranging from information-technology tariffs to Internet issues and trade facilitation during the Obama presidency, to the replacement of the North American Free Trade Agreement with the “U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement” in 2020.

In sum: The Supreme Court’s tariff case is indeed important. But it’s important for the integrity of the Constitution, Congress’ authority over “Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises,” and the security of the American public against sudden and arbitrary tax hikes on fuel oil, fertilizer, auto parts, groceries, etc.. It isn’t important for future presidents’ ability to negotiate with other countries over tariff rates, or otherwise influence tariff policy. They’ve been doing that for a long time, without violence to the Constitution, and will be perfectly able to keep doing it regardless of this case’s outcome. The Justices needn’t worry.

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.

Legal update:

The Supreme Court’s Docket 25-250 for V.O.S. Selections and Docket 124-1287 Learning Resources, with filings to date from the plaintiffs and the administration.

Amicus brief from House & Senate Democrats defending Congressional tariff authority.

Economists’ amicus brief explaining that trade balances are not national emergencies.

Court of Appeals opinion upholding C.I.T.’s view, August 29.

Court of International Trade decision striking down “IEEPA” tariffs, May 28. (See V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, #25-66.)

International Emergency Economic Powers Act text.

The official Constitution transcript, from the National Archives; see Article I, Section 8, first clause.

Reagan & Ontario v. Trump:

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation replays Ontario’s tariff advertisement.

President Reagan’s April 25, 1987, radio address on tariffs and trade.

… and as a follow-up, the September 12, 1988, speech signing the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement.

From February, New Hampshire NPR explains Canada’s role as northern New England’s main source of heating oil.

And last week, KHSB/Kansas City talks to soybean farmers on vanishing export markets and rising input costs.

Long look back:

Dr. Douglas Irwin’s Clashing Over Commerce reviews U.S. trade policy history from the Revolution forward. Hamilton and the Jay Treaty v. Jefferson and reciprocity; the antebellum Whigs-and-protectionism-v.-Democrats-and-revenue debate; high-tariff isolationism under McKinley, Harding, and Hoover; Roosevelt, Cordell Hull, and postwar liberal internationalism; 21st-century globalization arguments, all there.

PPI’s Ed Gresser, speaking at the Cosmos Club two weeks ago, compares the last general tariff increase — the “Smoot-Hawley” Tariff of 1930 — with the Trump administration’s 2025 decrees. Summary: nearly identical rates; different economic and logistics-industry contexts; overlapping ideological goals, but radically different methods of reaching them. Period-piece cameos by a giant airship (the 776-foot Graf Zeppelin), the Senate’s old two-handed telephones, and the D.H. Lawrence novel Lady Chatterley’s Lover.

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.

While No One Was Watching, the Senate Made Progress on Housing

Posted on by Alex Terr

The cost of housing has skyrocketed, and Americans are struggling to keep up. Over the past decade, average housing costs in U.S. cities have grown by roughly 54% compared to 35% for all goods. As a result, the median age of first-time homebuyers has climbed from 31 to 38 over the past decade, while nearly half of all renters now spend more than 30% of their income on housing. At its core, this crisis is rooted in a chronic housing supply shortage, especially in high-demand metro areas. 

While everyone watched Congress repeatedly fail to fund the government over the past several weeks, they may not have noticed when the Senate quietly passed a package of provisions to tackle the housing crisis. The ROAD to Housing Act — an initiative spearheaded by Senators Tim Scott (R-N.C.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) that was attached to this year’s National Defense Authorization Act — includes several promising ideas to spur housing construction and ease restrictive federal regulations. Among other provisions, the bill would: 

  • Create a Housing Innovation Fund to incentivize zoning changes. A new $200 million HUD grant program would reward cities that replace restrictive zoning codes — such as large lot mandates, density limits, or apartment bans — with policies that allow for denser housing.
  • Make housing construction a criterion for federal grants. Currently, many local governments receive federal grants even if they don’t allow enough housing development. This bill aims to change that by making housing growth a key factor when awarding major competitive grants — specifically, HUD’s Community Development Block Grant and the Department of Transportation’s Capital Investment Grants. Localities that expand their housing supply would be more likely to receive grants and could even receive bonus funding. 
  • Establish model zoning practices and pre-approved housing designs. To help cities that lack the technical capacity to update their outdated or restrictive zoning codes, the bill directs HUD to develop model zoning practices and pre-approved housing designs that can be easily adopted or adapted.
  • Streamline unnecessary environmental reviews. Many housing projects face costly and lengthy federal environmental reviews, even in cases where there is little discernible environmental impact. The bill would permit urban infill housing  — meaning housing built on unused lots in established neighborhoods — to move forward by streamlining or exempting them from these reviews.
  • Revise outdated barriers to manufactured and modular housing types. The bill eliminates unnecessary HUD regulations that raise costs and limit design flexibility for manufactured housing, improving its cost-effectiveness and making it a more viable solution to increase housing supply.
  • Raise the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) cap. HUD’s RAD program helps public housing agencies finance much-needed repairs through private investment, but it has been capped at 455,000 units since 2018. The bill would raise this cap, enabling more agencies to preserve dilapidated public housing that might otherwise fall into disrepair.

The ROAD to Housing Act makes important strides in expanding supply, but it is only a first step. Some provisions will require funding at levels that still need to be specified. After that, Congress will need to actually appropriate adequate funding — meaning these policies could be a casualty of the same broken budget process that led to the current government shutdown. And even if fully implemented, this Act is far from a comprehensive solution to the housing crisis. To build on this foundation, PPI has proposed several ambitious proposals aimed at further incentivizing construction and improving affordability for working Americans.  

First, Congress should address other policy areas that drive up housing costs — starting with construction materials. Tariffs on key inputs like steel, lumber, and aluminum have significantly inflated building costs and made it harder for developers to plan ahead. According to one survey of homebuilders conducted last spring, the administration’s tariffs had already added over $10,000 to the construction of a single home, equal to roughly a 6% markup compared to previous years. Repealing or reducing these tariffs would be a simple and quick way to lower construction costs nationwide.

Policymakers should also revise or expand the proposed Housing Innovation Fund to incentivize state-level reform as well. While the bill focuses on incentivizing change at the local level, it does little to promote action by state legislatures — many of which are more insulated from “not-in-my-backyard” (NIMBY) opposition and have been more willing to pass broad pro-housing legislation. A parallel grant program focused on state reforms would not just accelerate construction on a larger scale, but also incentivize states to target wealthy localities that don’t rely on federal funding and therefore have little reason to change their restrictive housing policies.

Finally, Congress should authorize the creation of a national Housing Construction Bank, a federally-backed financial institution that would provide low-cost capital to developers to build housing. Housing construction is highly sensitive to macroeconomic conditions, and private financing can dry up during periods of economic volatility or high interest rates. By stepping in with low-cost capital, loan guarantees, and other favorable terms for developers, the bank would ensure that housing construction — especially affordable and middle-income housing — does not collapse during volatile economic times, helping to smooth out the boom-bust cycles that have contributed to the nation’s chronic supply shortage.

The ROAD to Housing Act won’t solve the housing crisis overnight, but it’s a serious down payment on a smarter, pro-housing future. Congress should act now to pass this rare bipartisan bill on an issue voters across the political spectrum care deeply about. Then they should pass ambitious policies to expand supply and make it easier to build.

Lewis for RealClearPolitics: Restore Local Politics: Tie Campaign Donations to Voter Registration

Posted on by Alex Terr

American politics is broken, but not in the way most people think. The problem isn’t just the money – it’s where the money comes from.

Since Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America” in 1994, we’ve watched congressional races transform from local contests into nationalized referendums. Every House and Senate race has become a proxy war for party control, with millions of dollars flooding across state lines to tip the balance in competitive districts. A senator from Montana doesn’t answer primarily to Montanans anymore – they answer to donors in New York, California, and Texas who will fund their next campaign or their next primary challenger.

This nationalization has produced exactly the dysfunctional Congress we deserve. Members have little incentive to break with party leadership, even when it would serve their constituents. Compromise becomes politically toxic when your next primary opponent will be funded by ideological purists from across the country. The old ethic of “bringing home the bacon” for your district has given way to performing for national audiences and donor networks that will never cast a vote in your election.

Read more in RealClearPolitics.

Kahlenberg for Collegium Institute: Class Matters: A Spirited Debate Event

Posted on by Max Sherrill

Director of the American Identity Project at the Progressive Policy Institute, Richard Kahlenberg provided groundbreaking testimony that played a pivotal role in persuading the Supreme Court to strike down racial affirmative action, dismaying – and outraging – his own progressive circle. Yet, his conviction that economic disadvantage provides a better, more fair way to achieve diversity is unwavering.

In his new book, “Class Matters: The Fight to Get Beyond Race Preferences, Reduce Inequality, and Build Real Diversity at America’s Colleges,” Professor Kahlenberg makes the definitive case for adopting a class-based approach to college admissions, giving more people a place at the table and more opportunity to “swim in the river of power.” He includes an analysis of the preliminary admission results following the Supreme Court’s ruling, which indicate that colleges can achieve racial and economic diversity without explicit racial preferences.

Professor Kahlenberg presented the case of Class Matters at this special event of Princeton University’s James Madison Program, co-presented with the new Spirited Debate Initiative of the University of Pennsylvania’s Program for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society (PRRUCS). Kahlenberg’s opening remarks were followed by comments from Professor Marta Tienda (Princeton University) and Professor John McWhorter (Columbia University and New York Times). The conversation was moderated by Professor Robert P. George, Faculty Director of the James Madison Program.

Watch the full debate.

Moss for ProMarket: Resisting the Politicization of Antitrust and Regulation

Posted on by Max Sherrill

When ABC briefly pulled late night show host Jimmy Kimmel off the air last month, the swirl of political coverage focused primarily on the  First Amendment implications. Was the Trump White House pressuring broadcasters reliant on government licenses to silence a comedian and television host who relishes criticizing the president? Was an administration with an authoritarian streak making a move toward state-controlled media? The answers to these questions are undoubtedly yes.

But take a deeper look at the fact pattern, and it becomes clear that the Kimmel episode has as much to do with free speech as it does with using antitrust enforcement and regulation to advance the Trump administration’s political goals. This time, the end game is not the eradication of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, which the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) required as a condition for approving the Paramount-Skydance merger. It is also not about taking aim at political viewpoint, which the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) did in extracting a promise from marketing, advertising, and communications companies Omnicom and Interpublic Group (IPG) to refrain from tying advertising spending to (read “conservative”) ideology and viewpoint.

Rather, the Kimmel incident signals the pursuit of another political goal by the Trump administration: promoting state censorship. This time, both the political goal and method of interference are different. Indeed, the Kimmel incident is not about imposing conditions on mergers that have nothing to do with a credible antitrust violation. Rather, it is about the administration capitalizing on, or encouraging, companies to curry favor with the White House to get their mergers approved. In the case of Kimmel, the supplicant was the largest television station owner in the U.S., Nexstar, which is currently pursuing its own merger.

Keep reading in ProMarket.

PPI’s Moss Tells Senate Judiciary Committee That High Concentration in Agricultural Input Markets Harms Farmers and Consumers

Posted on by Alex Terr

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Diana Moss, Vice President and Director of Competition Policy at the Progressive Policy Institute, urged lawmakers to confront mounting consolidation in the seed and fertilizer industries that is squeezing U.S. farmers and driving up food costs for consumers.

Moss warned that decades of mergers among agricultural biotechnology firms have created highly concentrated, vertically integrated markets that raise prices and limit choice for seeds and fertilizers. She cautioned farmers are locked into complex bundled products for traits, seeds, agrochemicals, and digital farming, for which they pay high licensing and technology fees.

She also highlighted evidence of possible coordination in fertilizer markets, where higher market concentration and periodic prices spikes have burdened farmers and contributed to higher food prices.

Moss called for stronger antitrust enforcement, better coordination between the DOJ, FTC, and USDA, more data collection to improve market transparency, and potentially new authority for USDA in intervening to ensure stable and resilient supply chains that protect farmers and consumers.

Read the full testimony. 

Moss for CPI Antitrust Chronicle: Does Merger Enforcement Protect Consumers from the Long Term Costs of Consolidation?

Posted on by Max Sherrill

This article suggests that U.S. merger enforcement, while more effective at preventing harmful mergers in the short term, does not work as well to avoid scenarios that pose significant costs on consumers over the long-term. These scenarios involve markets that are affected by successive mergers, large mergers, and strategically motived serial acquisitions that can, variously, fortify barriers to entry create market power bottlenecks, and accelerate the loss of independent competitors. The analysis unpacks key aspects of merger enforcement that heighten these risks. A major takeaway is that vigorous merger enforcement in the short term plays a key role in minimizing long-term costs of consolidation but because it cannot completely tackle the problem, other policy tools may be needed to protect consumers.

Read the full article from the October 2025 CPI Antitrust Chronicle.

PPI Unveils AI Innovation Toolbox to Help Governors Compete in the Emerging Tech Economy

Posted on by Alex Terr

WASHINGTON — A new report from the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) unveils an AI innovation toolbox for governors: a practical policy framework designed to help states compete for investment, jobs, and leadership in the rapidly expanding artificial intelligence economy. Authored by Dr. Michael Mandel, Vice President and Chief Economist at PPI, “An AI Innovation Toolbox for Governors” identifies five strategic levers (tax incentives, smart energy policy, university partnerships, workforce training, and AI extension programs) to help states attract AI investment, boost productivity, and create well-paying jobs.

With U.S. businesses investing over $700 billion annually in software and tech giants spending $180 billion in AI-related capital outlays in the first half of 2025 alone, the report warns that states focused solely on regulating AI risk are missing out on transformative economic growth.

“Governors once competed for auto plants. Today, they must deploy a full AI innovation toolbox to attract cutting-edge businesses and build durable growth,” said Mandel. “That means creating the right incentives, ensuring grid readiness, training workers, and helping small businesses adopt AI to remain competitive.”

The brief highlights forward-looking state initiatives in New Jersey, New York, Florida, and others as models for attracting AI-related investment and spurring innovation. It also calls for states to move quickly, citing a “window of opportunity” that may close as industry leaders finalize siting decisions for data centers and research hubs.

Key policy tools detailed in the report include:

  • Tax incentives to attract AI startups and data centers
  • Smart grid investment and demand-side energy policies to accommodate rising electricity needs
  • University-business partnerships to drive AI research and workforce development
  • Career technical education and retraining for AI-related job growth
  • State-sponsored AI extension programs to help small and midsize businesses integrate AI
Governors have a narrow window to act. Those who leverage the full AI innovation toolbox will be better positioned to drive productivity, modernize key sectors, and deliver rising incomes in their states.

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 @PPI. 

###

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

An AI Innovation Toolbox for Governors

Posted on by Alex Terr

Should state governors act now to capture their share of the tech/ AI investment boom? The answer is unequivocally yes. By many measures, the economic heft of the software and related industries now matches or exceeds that of the motor vehicle industry, a traditional target of state economic development efforts. In 2024, U.S. businesses invested $700 billion in software, about equal to consumer spending on motor vehicles. In the first half of calendar year 2025, Amazon, Alphabet, Microsoft, Meta, Oracle and Apple laid out a stunning $180 billion in total capital expenditures, primarily in AI-related structures and equipment.

To put these numbers in perspective, this tech and AI investment surge dramatically overshadows domestic investment from major manufacturing industries. The motor vehicle industry invested just $29 billion in structures and equipment across all states in 2023, while the primary metals industry, including steel and aluminum, invested only $15 billion.

Governors who attracted high-wage auto assembly and parts plants to their states in the 1980s and 1990s were hailed as economic heroes. They used economic development tools like tax incentives and worker training subsidies to lower the cost and riskiness of making such large investments. At the same time, smaller businesses were supported through manufacturing and agricultural extension programs, which helped them keep up with new developments. The economic literature suggests that the benefits of these policies, on average, substantially exceed the costs.

Today, governors are putting together a new “AI innovation toolbox,” analogous to the economic development tools of the past. Tax incentives, employed wisely, can be used to attract AI startups and data processing centers to boost state economies. Smart energy policy, including faster approval of new grid investments, demand side management and long-term capacity commitments, can better match electricity generation and transmission upgrades to AI, industrial and transportation demand, and minimize the impact on retail rates. Governors can leverage their state’s public and private universities to develop and attract AI-focused businesses. Worker training subsidies and AI-focused career technical education can ensure that existing workers are not left behind. AI “extension programs” can accelerate the adoption of AI by small businesses, making state industries such as manufacturing, agriculture, and construction more competitive, and creating more demand for AI-enabled workers.

Read the full report.

 

Kahleberg in the Associated Press: Black enrollment is waning at many elite colleges after affirmative action ban, AP analysis finds

Posted on by Alex Terr

On average, the decreases don’t appear to be as steep as some college leaders predicted, said Richard Kahlenberg, a researcher at the Progressive Policy Institute. And he believes colleges can still do more to promote racial diversity, such as giving greater preference to students from lower-income families and eliminating legacy preferences that tend to benefit wealthy, white students.

“I wouldn’t want people to draw from the data a conclusion that the situation is hopeless,” he said.

Read more in the Associated Press.