Heidi Pascual's web site

By Jonathan Fritz & Michael Clark

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has insisted that U.S. foreign policy on Taiwan remains unchanged. However, the Trump administration’s pause of a $14 billion arms sale to Taiwan and President Trump’s cavalier abandonment of the “Six Assurances”—Washington’s decades-old pledge to sustain Taiwan’s defense capabilities and never negotiate its security with Beijing—represent a dangerous and fundamental shift. By treating Taiwan’s security as a mere “negotiating chip,” as the president told Fox News, Trump is rewarding Xi Jinping for reportedly haranguing him in Beijing about America becoming a “declining nation” as well as the dangers of U.S. support for Taiwan. Xi is no doubt delighted at the positive results of his tongue-lashing and likely relishes the chance to bargain away U.S. security commitments in the Pacific. In fact, Trump’s apparent appeasement does not signal continuity in U.S. policy on Taiwan—it is a profound betrayal that could severely weaken the entire U.S. alliance network in the Pacific and alter the regional balance of power to America’s detriment. Beijing views Taiwan as the last piece of unfinished business from the Chinese civil war and eventual “reunification” (in quotes because Taiwan has never been subject to PRC jurisdiction) as the essential touchstone of the Chinese Communist Party’s political legitimacy. While “peaceful reunification” has historically been Beijing’s avowed preference, it has never taken force off the table and has made clear that moves toward formal independence would trigger war. The electoral three-peat of presidential candidates from Taiwan’s Democratic Progressive Party—who have always been averse to tying the island’s future to the mainland—has been anathema to Xi’s grand vision for national rejuvenation, which is premised, above all else, on “reunification.” Under Xi’s leadership, Beijing has invested heavily in readying the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to be able to seize Taiwan if so ordered. Provocative military drills and maneuvers in the air and waters around the island have become disturbingly routine complements to PRC pressure on Taiwan in the cyber, economic, and diplomatic realms..​-- READ MORE

By Margaret Cooney and Devon Lespier

Federal agencies help Americans prepare for, survive, and recover from extreme weather disasters, but the Trump administration’s cuts to the National Weather Service, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and Federal Emergency Management Agency weaken that lifeline at every stage of a storm.

The federal government plays a crucial role in disaster, pre-disaster, and post-recovery for U.S. communities facing fossil-fueled climate disasters. Historically, these agencies have empowered citizens to avoid the worst impacts of extreme weather and rebuild in the aftermath. However, the Trump administration has been systematically dismantling agencies—slashing the jobs, budgets, infrastructure, and programs that give communities a fighting chance. Congress has also played a role, from cutting climate resilient funding for communities to defunding public broadcasting.

Protecting Americans and helping them weather these climate disasters is not a partisan issue in the eyes of the public an Associated Press-NORC poll found that 80 percent of Republicans and 87 percent of Democrats believe the federal government should play a “major role” in providing disaster aid.

From the first signs of extreme weather to reconstructing a damaged home, the federal government provides three lines of defense before, during, and immediately after a fossil-fueled climate disaster, as well as a recovery safety net that Americans rely on to literally weather a storm. Weakening our defenses and leaving holes in this safety net forces families and communities to fend for themselves during the most vulnerable moments of their lives. -- READ MORE

By Rosa Barrientos-Ferrer

Introduction and summary

“The biggest motivation is my love for the job that keeps me going despite every obstacle I’ve been put through,” said Alondra, a Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipient and an emergency department nurse who has to cross state lines from her home in Missouri to Illinois to provide health care services to Americans and work in her dream job.

Alondra is a proud Missourian, yet federal law restricts her from obtaining a nursing license absent specific state authorization. Currently, Missouri does not allow DACA recipients to practice nursing, but Illinois does. Alondra’s experience highlights both the benefits and limitations of DACA. Since its creation in 2012, DACA has provided more than 800,000 undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States as children and meet certain requirements—including periodically passing criminal and national security background checks—with the opportunity to work and live without fear of deportation.

DACA is not a durable legal status and does not provide a pathway to citizenship, but it does provide a temporary work permit and Social Security number that can open doors for recipients to enter professions including nursing, teaching, food services, and many others, although with state-based limitations on certain professions that require licenses. For Alondra, this has meant turning years of education, commitment, and persistence into a nursing career through which she provides essential care to every patient she serves, yet living each day with the uncertainty of DACA. A 2021 estimate found that about 34,000 DACA recipients work in health care. -- READ MORE

By Ryan Mulholland and Courtney Federico

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt assumed the presidency in 1933, his immediate goal was to rebuild and strengthen the domestic economy and create jobs amid the Great Depression. One way he did this was through the promotion of American exports to the world. Roosevelt’s subsequent New Deal legislation established a series of federal programs designed to put millions of Americans back to work and stabilize the country’s financial system. Part of that effort was the establishment of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (ExIm), which Roosevelt created via executive order, to provide credit to foreign buyers of U.S.-produced goods.

Since its creation, ExIm has helped bring more than $400 billion worth of U.S. exports to buyers around the world. It provided financing to rebuild Europe after World War II through the Marshall Plan, funded the purchase of American goods to help build the Pan American Highway and the Burma Road, and spurred economic development at home and abroad. In fiscal year 2024, the bank supported an estimated $8.4 billion in U.S. export sales and approximately 38,000 jobs across the nation. It is an agency whose impact is both significant and important.

Yet ExIm has sometimes failed to keep pace with modern challenges, such as climate change, or to maintain the highest standards for human rights. For example, during the first Trump administration, the bank committed $5 billion to TotalEnergies’ Mozambique liquified natural gas project—a project that has faced legal complaints claiming that they had been complicit in the alleged murder of more than 100 locals by security forces charged with protecting the project. When these atrocities were reported, both Britain and the Netherlands pulled their export financing commitments, but ExIm continued its support for the project. -- READ MORE

By Allison McManus, Michael Schiffer, & Steven Kosiak


To protect national security, the United States needs a strategic and disciplined approach to defense spending—not the Trump administration’s $1.5 trillion budget, which fails to match resources to strategy, needlessly inviting waste and increasing the deficit. In its latest budget request, the Trump administration has asked Congress for an unprecedented $1.45 trillion Pentagon budget (plus about $50 billion for other defense activities). This is both the largest inflation-adjusted dollar amount in history and the largest one-year increase (some $420 billion, in fiscal year 2027 dollars) since the Korean War.* President Donald Trump said in a Truth Social post that this amount is necessary to build a “Dream Military” and keep the United States “SAFE and SECURE.”


In fact, the request would impose a staggering bill on American taxpayers is completely disconnected from a coherent defense strategy, realistic threat assessment, or trade-off analysis and includes the obvious potential for multibillion-dollar waste. Providing for America’s defense and ensuring the readiness of its armed forces is essential—and requires a clear defense strategy that both prioritizes capabilities suited for the 21st century and ensures they are resourced through disciplined, accountable spending. Simply throwing enormous amounts of money at the problem of national security obscures the hard, strategic choices the Department of Defense needs to make to keep the country safe it does not mean these strategic choices will disappear.


A budget without a strategy -- The defense budget should provide the necessary resources to achieve a national security strategy suited to defending the nation in the modern era. So what would a smart defense budget look like? -- READ MORE

By Jazmine Amoako and Sara Estep


The May 2026 jobs report shows continued job growth and a stable unemployment rate, but there are also signs that labor market weakness—including labor underutilization—is being felt by a growing number of Americans.


Today, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its Employment Situation report for May 2026, showing that 172,000 jobs were added to the U.S. economy while the unemployment rate stayed the same at 4.3 percent. This increase in jobs came in well above expectations following two months of positive job growth and stable unemployment. Under these headline numbers, however, are continued signs of labor market weakness and underutilization, meaning more Americans are struggling to connect with work.


The BLS publishes five alternative measures of labor underutilization in addition to headline unemployment, and each one highlights that since President Donald Trump took office in January 2025, a growing number of Americans have experienced employment conditions that have left them underemployed or sidelined. In fact, new analysis by the Center for American Progress shows that labor underutilization is above pre-pandemic trends. More Americans are working part-time jobs when they desire full-time hours, have stopped actively looking for work, or have become too discouraged to search at all and those who are searching for work are experiencing longer spells of unemployment. At the same time, inflation-adjusted wages have fallen over the past year, meaning that even workers with steady employment are losing ground amid rising prices from Trump’s war in Iran and tariff policies. -- READ MORE